Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

CROSSRAIL BILL

Motion made,
That the Crossrail Bill be recommitted to the former Committee.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to reconsider its decision on the preamble of the Bill as reported by it to the House.—[Mr. Lidington]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after questions. Otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is using up the time for questions.

Mr. Greenway: It is on this.

Madam Speaker: After questions in the usual manner, please.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Clinical Waste Incineration

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to encourage hospitals within the NHS to make arrangements for the incineration of their clinical waste in such a way as to avoid pollution of the environment in residential areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): It is the Government's policy to ensure that all national health service hospitals comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware of the environmental and occupational risks that can be caused by the disposal of clinical waste by incinerators such as the one at Hillingdon hospital in my constituency? Is he aware of the report published by the British Medical Association only last week on 30 June? Will he consider the

desirability of earmarking resources for a national network of incinerators to dispose of clinical waste well away from residential areas?

Mr. Sackville: We shall be studying that report with interest, as we do all the utterances of the BMA. In particular, I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's consistent representations on behalf of his constituents about the hospital incinerator. However, he must remember the advantages of on-site clinical waste incineration and must take that into account in any other environmental considerations.

Elective Operations

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of elective operations are now carried out on a day care basis; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The number of day cases in the general acute sector has already doubled since 1988–89, the earliest year for which figures are available. In 1993–94, the proportion of elective admissions treated as day cases reached 48 per cent.

Sir Paul Beresford: This type of day care facility is being used as a specialty by many of the high-quality private health clinics and hospitals in Britain. Is there any trend to encourage health authorities to use those services, which are cost effective, to ease their workload?

Mrs. Bottomley: Where such services provide good value, the health authority is certainly free to establish a contract with an independent provider. The key is that day care provides good value for money. However, my hon. Friend will know that his local hospital, the Mayday trust, did the fifth best in the country in terms of cataract extraction: 90 per cent. of its cases are dealt with on a day basis. The hospital received four stars for cataract operations, four stars for arthroscopy, four stars for laparoscopy and three stars for hernia repair. My hon. Friend has a great deal to be proud of in the Mayday trust.

Ms Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that no one will believe the assurances that she gives on day surgery or any other aspect of the health service? If it is all sweetness and light in the health service, can she tell us why the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and a majority of other medical bodies, and now the Bishop of Birmingham, say that the health reforms are not working? They surely cannot be on their own in that. Will the Secretary of State answer that point?

Mrs. Bottomley: Change is always difficult, but it has to be grasped if we are to protect a remarkable achievement. Today, the anniversary of its founding, the national health service is providing treatment available to all on the basis of clinical need. That means embracing new technology, taking difficult decisions and resisting the temptation to scaremonger rather than lead people forward.

Sir Anthony Durant: Following my right hon. Friend's comments on day surgery and cataracts, will she congratulate the unit at Royal Berkshire Trust hospital, which she visited last Friday and which has had great success in day surgery? Will she congratulate the nurses and doctors on the success of that unit?

Mrs. Bottomley: Most certainly I will. I will also report to the House the comments from the patients whom I met when visiting the unit. They said that they were appalled by the scaremongering which suggested, for example, that patients over the age of 65 would not be treated by the NHS. Those patients, many of them well into their 60s and 70s, gave an account of the quality of the care that they received: they went in in the morning and returned home in the evening. Although that hospital got one star in the league tables, it is already achieving 45 per cent. of its cataract operations on a day basis because, since those tables were compiled, it has seen the future and invested in a day unit particularly to deliver day cataract surgery.

Mr. McCartney: First, I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on attending their last Health Question Time, as I understand that, like so many acute beds in the NHS, they are about to be closed down and shuffled out of the Department of Health.
Last week, the Secretary of State said that she was giving stars to star performers in her league tables. Why, then, is Manchester's Withington hospital—which achieved 100 per cent. ratings in casualty, in ear, nose and throat, ophthalmology, urology, gynaecology, oral, neurology and general surgery—not being congratulated but being given notice to quit? When such a wonderful hospital is receiving five-star ratings from the right hon. Lady, why is she allowing the regional health authority and the Department to close it down?

Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty believing me, he may like to consult The Guardian, which reported that last week's league tables represented a milestone in the NHS and that the Opposition had made fools of themselves in their attitude towards those league tables.
Perhaps I may quote to the hon. Gentleman the following comments:
Within the next 20 years, new technology, minimally invasive surgery and new diagnostic and treatment facilities will transform the delivery of health care in the developed world.
Those are not my words; they come straight out of the Labour party's own policy document.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agreeable benefits derived by patients from day care surgery are well supplemented by the Government's initiative on community care, which must be for the good of patients and their families?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Day surgery must be developed in context. The dramatic investment in primary care and the resources committed to community care ensure that those discharged from hospitals are properly supported at home. The idea that we should be in the business of trying to retain hospital beds as our prime preoccupation rather than increasing the number of patients treated conveniently is only the rhetoric espoused by the Opposition parties. We believe in patients, not furniture.

Residential Care and Nursing Homes

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the proposed review of registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): We expect shortly to issue for consultation a draft circular on improving the regulation of residential care and nursing homes.

Mr. Pickthall: What does the Minister intend to do about the rising incidence of professional misconduct and even abuse in residential care and nursing homes, as highlighted in the United Kingdom Central Council report? How does he intend to provide enough registration and inspection officers to ensure that the affairs of those homes are properly conducted and that the elderly residents are secure?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the UKCC report. When the report was published, I said that a single case of abuse was a betrayal of nursing trust and I stand by that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the rise in the number of cases investigated from 15 to 28, 27 and 35 in the past four years must be judged in the context of the fact that the number of residents in nursing homes has gone up by tens of thousands. In that context, I shall be talking to the Royal College of Nursing about ways of enabling nurses to spot problems, as well as with the associations of matrons and managers about improving supervision and with the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, NAHAT, to discuss training and inspection. In that way, we shall ensure as far as we possibly can that people will be safe and secure in their residential nursing homes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do nothing to alarm people unnecessarily, because in the vast majority of cases loving care is given.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the recent case of a lady who was apparently severely scalded, a fact which was discovered only by accident? Is that the tip of an iceberg? If so, is it possible to have a proper inspection system at all times and on every aspect of care in nursing homes, because that is what is needed?

Mr. Bowis: The case to which my hon. Friend refers occurred, I think, at a residential care home rather than a nursing home, and so is a matter for inspection by the social services. That particular case is also the subject of a police investigation, and I would not wish to comment on it.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we must maintain a secure and effective programme of inspection by social services departments of residential care homes in the private, voluntary and public sectors to ensure the safety and well-being of the people in those homes.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the report on a recent survey conducted by the charity Counsel and Care, which shows that the Government are seriously mistaken in believing that registration and inspection are regarded by private homes as burdens? Has he studied the recent letter sent to his Department by the relatives association which speaks of the anger and concern of relatives at the possible reduction of inspections? Does he now accept that applying the political gimmick of deregulation to the care of vulnerable people is totally inappropriate and wrong?

Mr. Bowis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the only circular that has been sent from my Department summarises the points that have been put to the


Department as a result of the consultation period. I hope that he will also accept that the Government have not spent the past decade putting into place regulations to support and safeguard vulnerable people to see them swept aside now. We are carefully considering the system of regulation and inspection to see whether it can be streamlined and simplified, and duplication avoided, so that the care in those homes can be devoted more effectively to the residents, and not in the interests of any form of bureaucracy.

Capital Equipment

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on new patient-treating capital equipment installed in hospitals in the past five years.

Mr. Sackville: In recent years, there has been a rapid rise in the use of non-invasive and minimal invasive techniques which has involved the acquisition of much high-tech medical equipment.

Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that in east Kent we now have available in our hospitals a new £1.25 million linear accelerator and a new computer tomographic scanner? Is he further aware that more patients are being treated by the new magnetic resonance imaging scanner, and that we are looking forward to tomorrow's visit by the Secretary of State formally to open the scanner?

Mr. Sackville: All that equipment has led to new techniques, with shorter hospital stays and better recovery. My hon. Friend's area has an enviable record, and about £1 billion worth of such equipment is now being acquired each year throughout the country.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that it is not much use having all that magnificent equipment if anyone can walk in and fiddle with it, as has happened at Bassetlaw hospital's intensive care unit on 16 occasions? The Secretary of State has said that that has nothing to do with her, because the hospital is run by a trust. Three days ago at Nottingham, somebody walked into a hospital and walked off with a four-hour-old baby, who has not yet been found. Will the Secretary of State again say that it has nothing to do with her because it is all down to the trust? Will there be investigations into the way in which hospitals are run, or are five stars just awarded ad lib?

Mr. Sackville: We are very aware that security needs to be much higher on the agenda of each hospital, but we cannot dictate what level of security to impose on each hospital. Hospitals are open places where people expect to visit their friends and relations, and each hospital must find a balance.

Dr. Liam Fox: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to assess the amount of new equipment opened and the number of new patients treated in the Birmingham area? Has he had a further chance to assess whether those have any link whatever with falling church attendance and church closures in the area?

Mr. Sackville: The bishop and I had some exchanges at a distance over the weekend. That is probably sufficient.

Mr. Blunkett: Does the junior Minister agree that if the Secretary of State opens something tomorrow, there is a

fair chance that it will be closed within the next six months? Will he take this opportunity to whisper in the right hon Lady's shell-like ear that her credibility and future prospects could be enhanced today, on the 46th anniversary of the founding of the national health service, if the £150 million spent at Philip Harris house and the £44 million donated in charitable giving were put to good use and saved by the right hon. Lady announcing today that she will save Guy's from her closure plan?

Mr. Sackville: I remind the hon. Gentleman that right through two severe recessions in the 1980s and 1990s we saw a constant rise in the hospital building programme—in sharp contrast with an earlier Government who, faced with a little local trouble in 1976 as a result of their own financial incompetence, reacted by slashing the NHS capital budget.

Mr. Oppenheim: As to capital equipment, does my hon. Friend agree that a caring and a more business-like approach in the NHS are not mutually exclusive, but mutually interdependent? Fine words and hand wringing do not treat more patients, but using necessarily finite resources does. Conservative Members, together with hundreds of thousands of people working in the NHS, can be justifiably proud of the enormous increase in NHS services since we came to power in 1979.

Mr. Sackville: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Nothing could be more un-Christian than running the health service in such a way as to produce longer waiting lists and less patient care.

Pay Beds

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of pay beds in the national health service on the principle that treatment is determined by clinical need rather than ability to pay; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Pay beds have existed since the NHS was founded 46 years ago. They have no impact at all on the principle that NHS patients are treated according to clinical need rather than ability to pay. Any private work that a consultant does is additional to his or her NHS duties and is carried out in his or her own time.

Mrs. Campbell: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Lady investigate whether pay beds or private referrals at Addenbrooke's hospital are responsible for one of my constituents, Megan Thompson, being told that she must wait until 1999 to see an orthopaedic consultant?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, that is a typical example of scaremongering from the hon. Lady. If she had made the investigations that I have made, she would know that the other orthopaedic surgeons at Addenbrooke's have waiting lists within 18 months. The hon. Lady referred to a particularly popular orthopaedic consultant, who has a longer waiting list. It is a question of freedom of choice for patients: if they insist on seeing a particular consultant, they must wait longer, but they can have an appointment with another within the 18 months.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pay beds provide an extremely valuable source of extra income for the NHS, but that the Labour party clearly does not


appreciate that? Does that not clearly show that despite the soft-focus imaging that the Labour party is undertaking at the moment, it does not permit freedom of choice?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it exactly right. I am concerned about the dispute in the Labour party. I notice from early-day motion 1436 that the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) both support putting an end to NHS pay beds. Is that the political sweetener for the unions about which Barbara Castle used to speak?

Ms Primarolo: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of private patients treated in the national health service has risen by 10 per cent. since she introduced the internal market? The NHS is subsidising private patients while health service patients are waiting longer for treatment. Will the right hon. Lady agree to establish the full cost of providing private health care, including the training of doctors and staff time in hospitals? Will she also ensure that private patients cannot queue-jump those in greater need?

Mrs. Bottomley: Pay beds bring in £157 million for the NHS—the equivalent of 41,000 hip replacement operations. There are clear rules. There may be no queue-jumping for priority or urgent operations, and the private sector may not disadvantage the NHS. It so happens that most people signed up to private health insurance in the winter of 1979–80 and in 1980–81. As ever, the private sector recruiting sergeant was Labour's stewardship of the NHS and the winter of discontent.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the relationship between private medical care and the national health service, and the fact that we are now celebrating 46 years of the health service, does my right hon. Friend recall the attitude of the British Medical Association on the formation of the health service, and will she therefore take with a pinch of salt the sort of nonsense that we are currently hearing?

Mrs. Bottomley: The current BMA conference is the fifth that I have experienced since I have been at the Department of Health. The script varies little from year to year. The doctors' trade union has a job to do, which it has done since 1948. I am pleased that behind the rhetoric there is a great deal of practical progress, such as reducing junior doctors' hours, improving out-of-hours arrangements for general practitioners and progress in other areas. The BMA is not talking about dismantling the reforms, but only about reforming them. That is progress indeed.

Continuing Care

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she intends to take to clarify health authorities' responsibilities for continuing care.

Mr. Bowis: We shall shortly be issuing, for comment, clarification on the guidance to health authorities on their long-term health care responsibilities.

Mr. Gunnell: How many of the 50,000 beds that the Secretary of State plans to empty are currently filled by continuing care patients? How can health authorities follow the rulings of the health commissioner on the Leeds

case if patients cannot afford private beds and cannot find public beds because the Secretary of State has disposed of the furniture?

Mr. Bowis: It is for health authorities to plan and provide the beds that they need. The hon. Gentleman misses the point that the Leeds case on which the commissioner made his judgment pre-dated community care and the discharge agreements that every local authority has to have in place with its local health authority. It is not for politicians to decide when a patient should remain in a bed; that is a matter for doctors. When they have decided that a patient no longer needs a bed, the discharge arrangements are put in place. Until the needs of the patient have been assessed and arrangements to meet them are in place, the patient should not be discharged from hospital.

Mr. Sims: Is it right that a patient who no longer needs hospital treatment and is capable of being cared for in a different setting can insist on remaining in hospital and, at his own wish or under pressure from relatives, is legally entitled to occupy a much needed bed? Is the balance between rights and responsibilities accurate here?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I shall not prejudge the guidance clarification that we are about to issue, but I assure him that we have looked carefully at the issue that he raises so as to ensure that we provide for patients who need hospital beds and do not give patients the right to have beds when they no longer have a clinical need for them.

Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the nightmare abduction from Queen's medical centre last week of Abbie Humphries, who was taken from her parents' arms. Will the Minister take this opportunity to offer support and sympathy to Roger and Karen, her parents, at this terrible time, and will he congratulate Queen's medical centre staff who, within five minutes of the abduction, were on the main roads outside stopping buses and questioning passengers? Will the Minister resist pressure for premature endorsement of the idea that infant tagging would have prevented that abduction rather than made the response time longer? Will he support calls from the police who say that members of the public must know the woman who took baby Abbie and that if they have even a fragment of information that can help to solve this crime they should contact the police so that Abbie can be returned safely and quickly to her parents?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently. I am sure that we all share the anguish of the parents of little Abbie. Our prayers are with those who are hunting for her, with her family and with her; our pleas are with the person who took her to return her to her family. I am sure that every maternity hospital and every maternity unit up and down the country is examining its security arrangements very carefully, to ensure that babies are safe in their care.

General Practitioner Fundholders

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the proportion of patients in the United Kingdom treated by general practitioner fundholders.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): There are now more than 2,000 general practitioner fundholding practices in England covering just over 35 per cent. of the population, with more practices preparing to join next April.

Mr. Coombs: Given the irresponsible scaremongering of the British Medical Association before the introduction of GP fundholding—it said that drugs would run out and that pensioners would go untreated—is not it highly significant that no fewer than 85 per cent. of my constituents are treated by GP fundholders, and are receiving a far higher standard of service as a result? Is not that evidence that the comments of Dr. Sandy Macara, the head of the doctors' trade union, should be treated with the contempt that they deserve?

Dr. Mawhinney: Both the BMA and the Opposition got the issue wrong, and both are now edging towards an admission of that. I am not in the least surprised that 85 per cent. of my hon. Friend's constituents are happy with the GP services that they are receiving.

Mr. Austin-Walker: The Minister will know that at the beginning of the last financial year millions of pounds were held in health authority bank accounts, representing the surplus or underspend on GP fundholders' budgets, at a time when hospitals and beds were closing because health authorities did not have sufficient funds. Would not it have been better for the money to be spent on treating patients? What steps will the Minister take to monitor such expenditure?

Dr. Mawhinney: That is exactly what the money is to be spent on: it is to be spent to benefit patients, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows. Only last week, I announced that we were reviewing the extent of the services on which the money might be spent to benefit patients, and that I would make an announcement about that question in the autumn.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday I attended the opening of Handsworth medical centre in my constituency, which was financed by money from central Government under the London implementation zone programme? Is he aware that, as a GP fundholding practice, the centre now has 14,000 satisfied patients? Does not he agree that that is a good way of demonstrating to the BMA and the Bishop of Birmingham that they should stop making political capital out of such matters, and start backing us?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has made two important points. The first is that, increasingly, the development of primary care is much more focused on what the GP feels able to do for his or her patients. The second—which flows from that—is that at the heart of the reforms was an understanding that if decisions were made as close to the patient as possible, they were more likely to be correct. That is fully borne out by what is now happening in GP fundholding practices throughout the country.

NHS Authorities (Appointments)

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she is proposing to the system of appointments to NHS authorities.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The system of appointing chairmen to NHS authorities is largely unchanged, and has been supported by successive Governments. We are introducing further improvements to make the system more standardised and open to support our objective of attracting people of the highest quality on to health authorities and trusts.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the appointments that she has made to both health authorities and trust boards have made them less and less representative of the communities that they are supposed to serve? When will she abandon the process of making such appointments in secret, behind closed doors, so that credibility can be restored to a system that has lost all public confidence—or does she believe that jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls are more important than public accountability in the national health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: Public service is the key criterion that I consider when making appointments to NHS authorities and trusts. Like a number of other hon. Members, I spent many years as a magistrate and chairman of a court. No one thought that that was a political appointment; it was made after careful vetting. The same applies to health authority appointments.
Unless the hon. Gentleman is trying to reopen the argument between Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan, which was put to bed 46 years ago, I suggest that he ensure that members of his party no longer put the frighteners on Labour people who wish to serve on trusts and health authorities, to make certain that we have good people from all political parties serving the interests of the public.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appointment of wicked Tories such as Rabbi Julia Neuberger and the former Labour Member of Parliament, Helene Hayman as chairmen of trusts shows that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. If the Labour party wishes to hark back, I do not think that the health service benefited from the appointment of the disqualified Lambeth councillors to the local health authority, or from that of the three prospective parliamentary candidates by Greenwich Labour party to its local health authority.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does not the Minister accept that there would be far more confidence in the system that she propounds if there were much more local discussion about the kind of appointments that should be made, rather than the process appearing to take place behind closed doors? Openness should be part of the right hon. Lady's policy.

Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, based on best practice, we are ensuring that in every region there is a process of open advertisement and nominations, including self-nominations, are encouraged. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will look for people with the skill, expertise and commitment to help us to take forward the extremely important NHS reforms.

NHS Hospital Treatments

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in national health service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.

Mr. Sackville: There were 9.6 million finished consultant episodes in 1992–93, compared with 6.5 million in 1978—an increase of 47 per cent.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures provide strong evidence of the improvement in the health service since the Government came to power? Will he confirm that the increase in the number of patients treated has been faster since the NHS reforms were introduced?

Mr. Sackville: Yes, indeed, and in hospitals that have become trusts, the number of patients treated rose faster than in other hospitals. Throughout our hospital system, a rapid increase both in the quality of care and in the number of patients treated is taking place.

Mr. Blunkett: On Sunday evening, the hon. Gentleman described the comments of the Bishop of Birmingham, saying that he lived "in a fairy-tale world" where no attempt at competitiveness existed. Is not such competitiveness best exemplified by today's revelation about the business plan at Charing Cross hospital, which involves headhunting a specialist from the Royal Marsden hospital, in order
to assist in destabilising a competitor".
Is not that entirely to do with business and commercial ethics, and nothing to do with serving the people?

Mr. Sackville: Health service management personnel are central and vital to the NHS. Unless we attract top-level management to run our hospitals it will be patients who suffer, because hospitals will be less well used, there will be a lower quality of care and fewer patients will be treated.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware how pleased we all are that the Front-Bench team is unmarked by the Santer claws? Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities for using volunteers—for example, in freeing beds by escorting patients home at weekends—are under-used, and will he ensure that more health authorities and trusts are aware of the opportunities for making full use of volunteers?

Mr. Sackville: One of the greatest features of our national health service is the commitment of local people to their local hospitals. Anything that we can do to encourage that further is good for patients.

NHS Service

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which the NHS provides a comprehensive service.

Dr. Mawhinney: My assessment is that the national health service is excellently comprehensive.

Mr. Michie: Is that the best that the Minister can do? May I remind the Secretary of State that the availability of the legal abortion of pregnancies, long-term care for the elderly, infertility treatment for women and physiotherapy

for old people are not universally available on the national health service? Added to that are the possible closure of the accident unit in Sheffield and threats to the children's services in Sheffield. Is not it true that the Secretary of State has failed to provide a comprehensive national health service in that city, too? Is not it about time that she either got on with the job or got out—or preferably both?

Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility for an excellently comprehensive national health service, for which she deserves great credit. As for the various things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, all of them are available on the national health service to those whose medical practitioners believe that they have a clinical need. Of course, the hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that the resources in Sheffield have gone up in real terms year on year, that the number of patients treated in Sheffield has gone up year on year—both in-patients and day-case patients—and that there has been a reduction in the waiting lists in Sheffield. All that is also part of the excellently comprehensive national health service.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the health service is comprehensive from the moment a child is born in one of our maternity units? I am sure that the House and the country will wish for the safe return of Abbie Humphries, but, rather than rejecting the possibility of introducing electronic tagging in maternity wards, will he and his right hon. and hon. Friends visit York district hospital maternity unit, where an electronic tagging system introduced last year has been extremely effective in improving security?

Dr. Mawhinney: I associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about Abbie, and our prayers and thoughts go out to her parents and to her at this time. I agree with my hon. Friend that the national health service provides a comprehensive service from the day that babies are born, but I would add that it continues until people die. I take pride in the fact that 40 per cent. of the national health service resources are devoted to that 16 per cent. of the population who are of retirement age.

Mr. Burden: But is not the market mechanism that the Government have imposed causing chaos in terms of the ability of the NHS to provide a comprehensive service? That is known by patients, who have to wait longer to see a consultant. Rather than attacking the Bishop of Birmingham for telling the truth, should not the Government reject a system that treats patients as mere commodities?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is precisely wrong. I always wish to be positive about the national health service. I want to welcome the extra number of patients who have been treated since the reforms came in, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. I want to welcome the improvement in the quality of service of the national health service since the reforms came in, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. I want to welcome the £100 million package of extra resources for Birmingham which was announced on Friday, and I hope that the bishop agrees with me. When I go to Birmingham again tomorrow, I shall be making it clear that, if the bishop would like to have a full briefing on what is actually happening in the national health service, I shall personally be happy to provide it for him.

Suicides

Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the "Health of the Nation" targets for the reduction in the number of suicides; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have received a number of representations from professional bodies, representatives of high-risk groups, voluntary organisations and members of the public. Recent representations have been constructive and broadly supportive of the targets.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" represents the first time that suicide has been treated and tackled as a public health issue? In anticipation of the exhibition by the Samaritans that is coming to Westminster in two weeks' time, will my right hon. Friend give us an update on the progress that has been made in tackling the targets, under the "Health of the Nation" strategy.

Mrs. Bottomley: I look forward to the event organised by the Samaritans. On behalf of many, I should like to express my appreciation for their work and for the work of the great number of volunteers across the country who man the telephone lines.
More people die by taking their own lives than are killed in accidents on the roads. One of the areas in the "Health of the Nation" strategy where we set out to achieve marked improvement was that of mental health—for the first time it has been identified. A great number of measures have been taken to help us to meet the targets, which we are determined to do.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State accept that when people are so distressed that they try to take their own lives—as a young man in my constituency did yesterday—one of the best ways of reducing the number of suicides is to ensure that they are as close as possible to the best possible medical treatment, to prevent their attempts turning into deaths and that the preservation of nearby acute services is of the essence? Will the right hon. Lady ensure that we have the hospitals and accident and emergency units to keep people alive?

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point—but frankly it is a misuse of the question. Suicide is a serious matter, and good general practice and primary care services are the key. Six out of 10 people who take their own lives have consulted a family doctor in the fortnight beforehand, and the changes that we are seeking to achieve in London are designed precisely to ensure that London has the same quality primary care services as are available elsewhere. That is the single most important factor.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): rose—

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Newton: Hang on, and I will tell the House. I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Edinburgh to greet the King and Queen of Norway at the start of their state visit.
Here in Westminster we await the visit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to discuss the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.

Mr. Bayley: What help will the Government give to the victims of a £30 million theft—that is to say, Asil Nadir's creditors, who yesterday announced that they were suing the Conservative party for the return of £400,000 given by Mr. Nadir to the Conservative party before the general election?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows the position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has made it quite clear that the Conservative party will of course return the money received from Polly Peck and Unipac—if it proves to have been stolen.

Mr. Forman: In the interests of enhancing the aesthetic and architectural attractions of central London, particularly some of our finer buildings and their surroundings, will my right hon. Friend have another look, within Whitehall and with his colleagues, at the apparent determination of Ministers to endorse the decision, suggested to them by senior civil servants, that Horse Guards parade should continue to be used, unusually, for the parking of motor cars by senior civil servants? Surely, its architectural and other beauties should be enhanced by leaving it as a public open space.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the discussions that have taken place on these matters. I shall certainly bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Beckett: Why does the Lord President think that the British Medical Association's conference is saying that the Government's health service changes have failed the nation?

Mr. Newton: The British Medical Association's conference is making those remarks, but it appears to be overlooking the fact that the number of patients treated in hospital has grown by record amounts, that the quality of care has improved and that the number of patients waiting more than a year has fallen by 100,000 to not much more than 60,000.

Mrs. Beckett: But does not the Lord President understand that the remarks that he makes are recognised only by the Cabinet as a depiction of the picture of the health service and that those people at the sharp end of the national health service, including—but not only—the doctors, are talking about alienation, despair and a two-tier health service? They said yesterday:
treatment except in emergencies has now become a national and local lottery.
How can he defend that?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment—and I do not think many of the people to whom I talk in hospitals and general practitioner practices up and down the country accept for a moment—what the right hon. Lady is saying. As for two-tierism, the Government stand four square on their 1991 agreement that common waiting lists apply to


all urgent cases; that all emergencies will be treated immediately; and that no hospital is to offer contracts to one purchaser which will disadvantage patients of another.

Mrs. Beckett: But the BMA is telling the Government that this is happening. Does the Lord President dispute the fact that there are three times as many managers and 12,000 fewer nurses than when all this started? I remind him again of what the BMA said yesterday:
business plans override clinical priority. Money does not follow the patient—The patient has no choice but to follow the money until it runs out.
The Government are destroying the principle on which the health service is based. What will it take to make them realise, acknowledge and stop that?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Lady's criticisms and those she attributes to others simply do not stand up alongside the fact that, for every 100 patients treated in hospital in 1990–91—the last year before the reforms—the NHS expects to treat 121 this year. That is a 20 per cent. increase.

Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the granting of legal aid on occasions to people of apparently significant means and sometimes to foreign nationals of very great means? Is not it time that the legal aid authorities looked far more closely at the applicants who come before them and said that under no circumstances should legal aid be granted to nationals of foreign countries unless there is a reciprocal arrangement in force?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would wrong for me to be drawn into commenting from the Dispatch Box on an individual case. I want to recognise the concern that he and others have expressed. He will know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does consider carefully, and has made a number of adjustments of, the legal aid arrangements and will certainly want to look at what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Betts: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Betts: Is the Leader of the House aware that, among its many inefficiencies, the Child Support Agency is regularly taking up to two weeks and sometimes longer to pass the maintenance that it receives on to parents with care? Is he further aware that that not only creates problems for those people, but means that the agency accrues large sums in interest on the money that it holds? Does he believe that the money should be paid back to those people making maintenance payments or those receiving them, or does he believe that the agency should continue to make a profit out of its own inefficiencies, and that the Government should make a profit out of the misery that they have inflicted on those people because of this appalling legislation?

Mr. Newton: This subject was rightly debated extensively in the House yesterday and the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was here, will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledge that there is a need for improvement in the

administration of the Child Support Agency and indicate that steps are being taken to bring that about. Indeed, that commitment is backed by some 700 extra staff and an increased budget to tackle just the sort of problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Sims: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that neither side in the signalmen's dispute merits much credit for the way in which the dispute has been handled? Does he further agree that not only are his constituents and mine becoming increasingly frustrated by the weekly disruption of their business and social life but the economy is being damaged? Is not it time for all parties in the House to condemn this foolish and unnecessary strike?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Once again, I must regret the extent to which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) felt unable to make her position clear. I am sure that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends regard a strike in support of an 11 per cent. pay rise with no productivity or restructuring as one that should be reconsidered and called off with a view to returning to sensible negotiation.

Mr. Chisholm: Did the Leader of the House see the research from North Thames health authority last week, which showed that more money is spent on average on the patients of GP fundholders than on those of non-GP fundholders? Has he seen the report in this morning's papers to the effect that a trust hospital in Kent has admitted operating a two-tier system with the tacit approval of the local health authority? Will he act against this blatant inequity and instruct Scottish Office Ministers to withdraw their edict that 30 per cent. of patients in Scotland should be looked after by GP fundholders by next April?

Mr. Newton: I have already commented on the allegations of a two-tier service that were made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: GP fundholders are not preferentially funded. They make contracts with trusts on the same terms as health authorities.

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong support on both sides of the House, particularly given recent tragedies, for the introduction of seat belts in minibuses and coaches. Britain has been at the forefront in Europe in introducing measures to reduce road casualties, but will he assure the House that Britain will continue to be at the forefront on this issue?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already indicated his support for some of the moves that are being proposed in Europe, but, more comprehensively, we are reviewing the fitting of seat


belts in minibuses and coaches, including the technical and cost implications. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish the report, and our conclusions, before the summer recess.

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Lord President prepared to commend to all our people for study and action the Alzheimer's Disease Society's publication "Home Alone"? Does he agree that more doctors should be aware of the disease and more ready not simply to diagnose people as suffering from old age when they are suffering from Alzheimer's disease?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that, like him, I have had many contacts with the excellent Alzheimer's Disease Society over the years. It is important with that disease, as with others, that general practitioners are alert in identifying it and do not see it simply as a phenomenon of age. They should be able to steer people in the right direction, and part of the aim of our care in the community policy, not least the emphasis on carers as well as sufferers, is to improve our capacity to deal with such difficulties when they arise.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week a pioneering project was opened in my constituency sponsored by Shaftesbury housing, which combines housing with long-term care? Does he agree that that represents the very best of community care in action?

Not only does it debunk Labour's accusations of decentralisation but, more important, it gives residents a secure environment in which they do not have to sacrifice their independence.

Mr. Newton: At the outset, I had better acknowledge that I was not aware of the scheme in my hon. Friend's constituency, which certainly sounds excellent. It is representative of a number of community care schemes throughout the country that are assisted by the Housing Corporation, a mixture of public and private finance and voluntary organisations. Such schemes greatly improve our capacity to care for Alzheimer's disease sufferers and for the others whom my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 July.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is completely unacceptable for the privatised electricity companies to apply a surcharge for consumers using pre-payment meters, such as key charge? Such consumers are nearly always those who are least able to afford to pay a surcharge. What action will the Government take to stop the practice?

Mr. Newton: In general, charging policies for electricity companies or any other private operations are for the owners and managers of the individual operations to determine. Additional costs will often be incurred in providing a facility of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has described. That factor is one which, rightly, should be taken into account.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the oath:

Mrs. Helen Liddell, for Monklands, East.

Point of order

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order Madam Speaker. With great respect, what precedent is there for a Chairman of Ways and Means to veto a Bill that would have enormous implications for jobs and economic development in my constituency of Ealing, North and in constituencies throughout London and beyond? I refer, of course, to the Crossrail Bill.

Madam Speaker: I fully support the course of action taken today by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The future progress of the Crossrail Bill is for the Government to determine.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX

That the Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

HOUSING

That the draft Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

French Words (Prohibition)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to pages 528–29 of "Erskine May"? The first heading on page 528 is "Proceedings on Royal Assent". Within that section there are the following words:
The Clerk of the Parliaments subsequently endorses the Acts with the customary Norman French formulae".
On page 529 there appear the formulae for the Royal Assent for public and private Acts:
'La Reyne le veult', and for personal Acts 'Soft fait comme il est desire'.
As the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) introduces his Bill, it could undermine the Royal Prerogative in terms of Royal Assents to Acts and could interfere with the ability of the Clerk of the Parliaments to provide the Royal Assent to both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that the proposed Bill might infringe the rights of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Royal Prerogative.

Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has just made clear to the House, court French of the 14th century is entirely permissible in the instances that the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated. We shall now have to see whether the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who is proposing the Bill, is going to interfere with that Norman French of the 14th century. I must hear what the hon. Member for South Hams has to say before I rule on the point or order.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of French words in written and spoken English; and for connected purposes.
I seek the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to outlaw the use of everyday French words in the English language, whether spoken or written, which, if infringed, would be punishable by a fine. I am doing this principally to make a point, not to be taken too seriously, to highlight the bizarre situation which has resulted in the French language prohibition Bill or le loi relatif a l'emploi de la langue Francaise tabled by Jacques Toubon, the Gaullist Culture Minister, which passed all its stages in the French National Assembly and the Senate last Friday.
That Bill banned the use of English words or expressions such as software, hamburger, football and tee-shirt on advertising boards, in the media, on television or radio, in work contracts and instruction leaflets; and, even where English is the chosen language at international congresses held in France, all French contributions must be delivered in French. If someone were to flout the law and sneak in an English word or two, that person could be sent to the Bastille for six months or fined £5,000. Mr. Toubon's Bill tears up completely the entente cordiale which was signed by Edward VII on 8 April 1904 at the end of 100 years of hostilities between the French and the English.
Mr. Toubon's measure also makes a mockery of the French commitment to a federal Europe. Every country in the European Community is proud of its status as a nation state, but the French have tipped the scales towards chauvinism. They want harmonisation, but on their terms. When Jacques Delors preaches a united states of Europe, he no doubt wants the capital in Strasbourg, the currency in francs and a single spoken language—French.
Some may conclude that the French language Bill is ridiculous but for the fact that Mr. Toubon insists that the Bill will be enforced rigorously. However, without employing battalions of language police, it will not be possible to prevent Frenchmen from using certain English words or expressions when they feel inspired to do so. To think otherwise is to live in cloud cuckoo land. My hunch is that the Bill will probably go the way of so many other French Bills—locked away in an anti-tilting filing cabinet marked "No further action".
I stress that my Bill is solely retaliatory—a cause célèbre. My aim is to introduce an equivalent measure as a tit-for-tat response. I am no enfant terrible and I am wholly in favour of the French—their food, their drink and their beautiful countryside. While some will see Toubon's Bill as a big joke, others see it as a discriminatory measure which is offensive.
What is the raison d'être, Madam Speaker—if you will excuse the phrase—for Mr. Toubon introducing his Bill? Perhaps the French fear an invasion of English words shooting through the channel tunnel and so infecting their language with impurities. However, is not the French Government's idea of a pure language a stone's throw from a policy of ethnic cleansing and purity of race?
Outlawing the use of English words is especially rich coming as it does exactly four weeks after D-day celebrations and commemorations where we stood shoulder to shoulder with the French remembering past events. However, the entire French Cabinet has endorsed a Bill outlawing the language of the very people who liberated them 50 years ago and who are close market partners. It is a clear case of discrimination, not of race, age or sex but of language.
Languages are strengthened, not weakened, by the introduction of words from other countries. Purity of language is a contradiction in terms. English is a mélange, if I may so, of Saxon, Norse, Icelandic, Dutch, German and French. There is also Urdu—take a dekko is Urdu—and Arabic, including words such as raffia. To stand up for English is to defend the constantly evolving and expanding entity which cannot be restricted or controlled. English could produce Shakespeare and Joyce only because of its inclusion of foreign words. Without French words—and some 1,400 of them are in regular use—the English language would have holes as large of those found in a gruyère cheese.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking in favour of his Bill or against it.

Mr. Steen: Madam Speaker, if you give me a couple more minutes, you will see which way I am turning.
The fantasy of the French to believe that their language can ever be pure flies in the face of the fundamental promise and premise of what language is all about. It is about having sufficient words to describe life. As life gets more complex, we need more new words and phrases, not fewer.
How would my Bill work? It would work by utilising a much under-utilised national resource—by giving traffic wardens additional duties. Last night, 1,000 extra wardens were announced for London, undoubtedly in anticipation of this Bill getting through the House. In addition to using their eyes and gazing at parking meters, they would be invited to keep their ears open in public places for any

French word that might escape the lips of a passer-by. The law would empower them to issue an on-the-spot language fine of £10 for every French word used. The service would be self-financing, with £1 of every £10 collected going towards the wages of the warden, and the balance of £9 going towards paying the deficit in our balance of payments with France.
We should forget words like baguette or croissant—they are out. We would not be able to visit a café or brasserie. There would be no apéritifs or hors d'oeuvres—in fact, there would be no restaurants. We should forget the table d'hôte; there is no question of the a la carte instead. There would be no left or right-hand side of the menu and no nouvelle cuisine. Bon viveurs would be banned. One would not be able to shower one's fiancée with bouquets, meet at a secret rendezvous, or buy her haute couture clothes. There would be great difficulties in having a ménage-à-trois. Crime passionnel would be out of the question and negligée would make a liaison dangereuse a little risquée.
If one is a gambling man, one would no longer hear the familiar words faites vos jeux or rien ne va plus when playing the tables. There would be no question of feeling déjà vu and there is no way that one could live in a pied-à-terre. If by chance one drives in a cul-de-sac, that would be a bit of a faux pas. In short, everyone in the country would have to mind their language and pardon their French because Mr. Toubon's Bill is a fait accompli. However, he does not realise that, if he ever came to Britain, he would be refused entry unless he changed his name to Mr. Allgood.
Our parliamentary processes would also grind to a halt. There would be no messages from the Commons to the Lords, but I think that that can be taken care of by the 14th century French. Royalty would also resent the fact that their coat of arms would be laid bare with the removal of the words "honi soit qui mal y pense". In fact, Parliament would exist no more because it is a French word. But what a relief—no more 10-minute Bills.
At one fell swoop, the French, by their actions, will bring our nation's communications to its knees without a bone being broken. While Englishmen have free access to travel and frontiers have come down, their words must stay at home. Perhaps the French will argue that their Bill banning English words is dealt with under subsidiarity. But just as the Maginot line of fortification which was intended to stop the German invasion failed, so too will the French Words (Prohibition) Bill. It will not stop the invasion of English words into French, and that is how the French see it—an invasion.
The purpose of seeking leave to bring in the Bill is to introduce legislation which I hope will not cause a furore but which will highlight the absurdity and unenforceability of French law. I am raising the matter now to prevent a hairline crack in Anglo-Franco relations from growing into a chasm.
For those who say that this is all a waste of time, I remind them that the House sat for 1,978 hours and 14 minutes in 1987–88 and for 1,373 hours and 53 minutes in 1991. So 10 minutes is but a drop in the ocean in the affairs of state. Furthermore, the French clearly do not think that their Bill is frivolous. [Interruption.]

Mr. John Home Robertson: Guillotine him.

Mr. Steen: Otherwise, they would not have passed it through Parliament. I personally believe that discrimination against the country's language has serious implications, if for no other reason because it deprives the individual of his freedom of speech—

Madam Speaker: Order. The guillotine has fallen.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Given the élan, the éclat, the insouciance and savoir faire with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has presented his Bill, it may seem churlish to oppose it, but I believe that, both for the sake of Franco-British relations and for the sake of the English language, a brief word of protest is called for.
English is the richest language in the world, but it is rich precisely because it is not pure. It is a mongrel tongue. Emerson called it
the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven.
My hon. Friend has pointed out the many countries which have contributed to the English language, including, of course, France. The French have given our language more than a certain je ne sais quoi. They have enriched our vocabulary for centuries and will do so for many more.
For centuries, too, the French have been attempting to preserve the purity of their language, with the net result that their vocabulary is much smaller than ours. Shakespeare had a vocabulary of 30,000 different words in all his plays. James Joyce in just one work, "Ulysses", used a vocabulary of 30,000 words—several of which, Madam Speaker, I hope you have not come across. However, Molière, in his entire work, used a vocabulary of only some 9,000 words.
I understand the desire of the French to preserve the integrity of their language, but I fear that, in an age in which, happily for this country, English is the lingua franca of the global village, they face an uphill struggle. So in the bistro, the restaurant and the café—which my hon. Friend would obviously like us to call eateries in future—it will still be easier for a Frenchman to ask for "un sandwich", even if the Assemblée Nationale would prefer him to ask for "deux morceaux de pain avec quelque chose au milieu". I reckon that, when it comes to the linguistic exchange rate mechanism, one cannot buck the market.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the exemplification of sang froid—in this case, it certainly is the mot juste—and his opposite number Mr. Alain Juppé have just produced a joint publication to mark the 90th anniversary of that special relationship for which there is no fitting English phrase. That is why we call it the entente cordiale.
Exactly half a century ago, the then Prime Minister reminded the House that all his life he had been grateful for the contribution that France had made to the glory and culture of Europe, above all for the sense of personal liberty that has radiated from the soul of France. In the name of personal liberty, in the spirit of rapprochement, and on the day that the Tour de France comes to Tunbridge Wells, I must oppose the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman gets the hat, I will take his point of order; otherwise, I cannot hear it.

Mr. Marlow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a relatively simple matter for you to rule on. As the treaty of Rome, as amended, includes the words "acquis communautaire", may I ask whether, before we vote on the Bill, I am right in assuming that, if my hon. Friend's Bill were to be successful, the treaty of Rome would then cease to have effect?

Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a lot of wishful thinking.

The House having divided: Ayes 45, Noes 149.

280]
[3.49 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Marlow, Tony


Ashby, David
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Beggs, Roy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Body, Sir Richard
Porter, David (Waveney)


Booth, Hartley
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Congdon, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Sweeney, Walter


Dickens, Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Dover, Den
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Trimble, David


Gallie, Phil
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Gillan, Cheryl
Whittingdale, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Harris, David



Hawksley, Warren
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mr. Anthony Steen and


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Mr. Michael Fabricant.


Lawrence, Sir Ivan



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ann


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cousins, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dixon, Don


Bennett, Andrew F.
Donohoe, Brian H.


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Enright, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gunnell, John


Church, Judith
Hall, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John






Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hodge, Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hutton, John
Page, Richard


Illsley, Eric
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Patchett, Terry


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Jowell, Tessa
Reid, Dr John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rendel, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Liddell, Helen
Snaps, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Spink, Dr Robert


McFall, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maclennan, Robert
Stephen, Michael


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


MacShane, Denis
Timms, Stephen


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wray, Jimmy


Maxton, John
Wright, Dr Tony


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Tellers for the Noes:


Milburn, Alan
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Alan Simpson.


Morley, Elliot

Question accordingly negatived.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), having spoken against the Bill, to fail to follow his voice with his vote?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman declared his intention, but he had absolutely every right to abstain. That was in order.

Orders of the Day — Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered

Ordered,
That the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely: new Clauses except those relating to Magistrates' Courts, new Schedules except those relating to Magistrates Courts, Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 62, Amendments relating to Schedules 1 to 6, new Clauses relating to Magistrates' Courts, new Schedules relating to Magistrates' Courts, Amendments relating to Clauses 63 to 85 and Schedule 7, Amendments relating to Clauses 86 to 90 and Schedule 8.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

New clause 13

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO POLICE AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE POLICE ACT 1964

'.—(1) Any relevant legislative provision which, immediately before the passing of this Act, applied to police authorities constituted in accordance with section 2 of the Police Act 1964 shall, except where the context otherwise requires, apply in the same way to police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of this Act).

(2) Subsection (1) above is subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under this Act.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a provision is a "relevant legislative provision" if it is a provision (other than a provision which applies only to specified police authorities) of an instrument which—

(a) was made before the passing of this Act under a public general Act, and
(b) is of a legislative character.'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42, 38 and 75.

Mr. Wardle: New clause 13 concerns secondary legislation that currently applies to police authorities. As the Bill amends the Police Act 1964, some existing references to police authorities in secondary legislation would cease to have effect. The new clause does not make any changes of substance, but simply allows existing secondary legislation to continue to apply to police authorities as they will be constituted under the Bill.
Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42, 38 and 75 are technical in nature, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC.

'.After section 15 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc

15A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or


(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief officer of police for its area.

(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a member of the police force maintained by the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) of this section may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,
(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or
(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.


(6) A police authority may make charges for advice or assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) In its application in relation to the metropolitan police this section shall apply—

(a) as if the power conferred by subsection (1) were conferred on the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (and accordingly as if the references in subsections (1)(b) and (2) to a police authority were omitted), and
(b) as if in subsection (6) the reference to a police authority were a reference to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.


(8) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government new clause 15—Reports from police authorities.
Government new clause 16—Police grant and other grants.
Government new clause 17—Regulations under section 33 of the 1964 Act.
Government amendments Nos. 34, 35, 24 to 29, 36, 37 and 30 to 33.

Mr. Wardle: The new clauses and consequential amendments deal with service overseas by British police officers. Their principal effect is to permit police officers from the United Kingdom to serve abroad not only with foreign Governments—which is already possible under existing legislation—but with international organisations such as the United Nations.
New clauses 14 and 15 relate to England and Wales, and new clauses 16 and 17 apply the same substantive provisions in Scotland. I commend them to the House.

Mr. David Trimble: If the Minister had spoken a little longer, I would have intervened. He said that the clauses would enable members of British police forces to serve overseas. Am I right in thinking that the clauses do not extend to the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Are there any proposals to enable members of that force to serve overseas, because it has an enormous wealth of experience that many countries would find relevant?

Mr. Charles Wardle: As I said, the new clauses apply to England, Wales and Scotland, but I understand that the provisions will extend to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

POLICE OFFICERS ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE

'.After section 53B of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Police officers engaged on service outside their force

53C.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of this Act,
(b) central service (as defined in section 43(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,
(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,
(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or
(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.


(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a member of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a member of that force during that service; but, except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and
(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 33 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.


(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1)(c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and
(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.


(6) A member of a police force who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section, or
(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or
(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (3) of section 33 of this Act for anything


done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 37 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or
(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection, it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such other person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.' —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16

PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ETC., SCOTLAND

'. After section 12 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—

Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc

12A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a police authority may provide advice and assistance—

(a) to an international organisation or institution, or
(b) to any other person or body which is engaged outside the United Kingdom in the carrying on of activities similar to any carried on by the authority or the chief constable of a force maintained by it.


(2) The power conferred on a police authority by subsection (1) of this section includes a power to make arrangements under which a constable of the force maintained for the area of the authority is engaged for a period of temporary service with a person or body within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercised except with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with a general authorisation given by him.
(4) A consent or authorisation under subsection (3) above may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(5) Nothing in this section authorises a police authority to provide any financial assistance by—

(a) making a grant or loan,
(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or
(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital.


(6) A police authority may make charges for advice and assistance provided by it under this section.
(7) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 and section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-Operation Act 1980.".' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 17

CONSTABLES ENGAGED ON SERVICE OUTSIDE THEIR FORCE

'. After section 38 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—

Constables engaged on service outside their force

38A.—(1) For the purposes of this section "relevant service" means—

(a) temporary service on which a person is engaged in accordance with arrangements made under section 12A(2) of this Act,
(b) central service (as defined by section 38(5) of this Act) on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,

(c) service the expenses of which are payable under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority,
(d) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority, or
(e) service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority.


(2) In subsection (1) of this section "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 38 of this Act.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) to (7) of this section, a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service shall be treated as if he were not a constable of that force during that service; but except where a pension, allowance or gratuity becomes payable to him out of money provided by Parliament by virtue of regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976—

(a) he shall be entitled at the end of the period of relevant service to revert to his police force in the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period began, and
(b) he shall be treated as if he had been serving in that force during the period of relevant service for the purposes of any scale prescribed by or under regulations made under section 26 of this Act fixing his rate of pay by reference to his length of service.


(4) In the case of relevant service to which subsection (1)(c) of this section refers, the reference in subsection (3) of this section to regulations made under the Police Pensions Act 1976 shall be read as including a reference to regulations made under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
(5) A person may, when engaged on relevant service, be promoted in his police force as if he were serving in that force; and in any such case—

(a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section to the rank in which he was serving immediately before the period of relevant service began shall be construed as a reference to the rank to which he is promoted, and
(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection he shall be treated as having served in that rank from the time of his promotion.


(6) A constable who—

(a) has completed a period of relevant service within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (1) of this section,
(b) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (c) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service by the disciplinary authority established by regulations under section 1 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or is required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, or
(c) while engaged on relevant service within paragraph (d) of that subsection, is dismissed from that service or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal,

may be dealt with under regulations made in accordance with subsection (2A) of section 26 of this Act for anything done or omitted while he was engaged on that service as if that service had been service in his police force; and section 30 of this Act shall apply accordingly.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section a certificate certifying that a person has been dismissed, or required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, shall be evidence of the fact so certified, if—

(a) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, it is given by the disciplinary authority referred to in that paragraph, or
(b) in a case within paragraph (c) of that subsection it is given by or on behalf of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or such person or authority as may be designated for the purposes of this subsection by order of the Secretary of State.'. — [Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS OF SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY

'. In section 63 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (arrangements as to police authority functions etc.), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
(2A) The officers who may discharge functions of a police authority in pursuance of arrangements under section 56(1) or (2) of this Act shall include the chief constable of the police force.
(2B) Where, pursuant to arrangements made by virtue of subsection (2A) above, a chief constable may discharge functions of a police authority, he may himself arrange for the discharge of any of the functions in question by a constable of the police force or by a person who is employed by the authority but is not under their direction and control,".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 70.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The clause clarifies the power of police authorities to delegate functions to the chief constable. It will also allow a chief constable to delegate responsibility to police officers or civilian staff where a function has been delegated to him by the police authority. The reason for the amendment is to allow maximum devolution of management responsibility for his force to the chief constable. That is an important aspect of the Government's policy on police reform. A similar amendment on delegation of functions by chief constables in England and Wales was passed in Committee. The amendment to clause 46 is consequential. The provisions will be permissive, not mandatory. Decisions on delegation will be matters for police authorities and chief constables. We will issue guidance on delegation on financial management after appropriate consultation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS TO PROMOTE CRIME PREVENTION

'After section 1 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Local partnerships to promote crime prevention

1A.—(1) It shall be the duty of every police authority to facilitate the crime prevention activities of a local authority in its area.
(2) It shall be the duty of every local authority in a police area—

(a) to take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of crime;
(b) in consultation with the police authority, the chief officer of police and the chief probation officer of the area which includes the local authority and with such other organisations as the local authority shall see fit, to publish together with the police authority a joint strategy for the prevention of crime;
(c) together with the police authority to promote the active involvement of local residents and voluntary organisations in understanding the incidence of crime in their own community and the design and the local implementation of joint strategy; and
(d) to review and publish annually with the police authority a report on the strategy and the extent to which its objectives are being achieved.


(3) In this section 'local authority' shall mean a county council, a district council or a London borough council.".'. — [Mr. Blair.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Blair: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 81, in schedule 4, page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a Police Authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.

Mr. Blair: The new clause proposes to place a statutory responsibility for crime prevention on local authorities, thereby putting crime prevention in a proper and structured framework. The proposal is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and every senior police body. It is supported by virtually all the agencies connected with crime prevention and by local authorities. In short, it is supported by everyone except the Government. The proposal is also in line with the explicit recommendation of the Government's last published report on crime prevention.
Behind the new clause lies an important debate about the future of policing and the type of policing that we wish to see in our society. 
There are essentially two views of the role of the police. First, it is seen as simply a law enforcement agency to catch the criminal after the crime has been committed. The other view encompasses that vital role, but also sees the police as a public service working within its local community. That notion of community policing is not just consistent with the British system of policing but has been vigorously developed in recent years by the police themselves.
The Government tend to the narrow view of policing, but we strongly favour the police as a public service working in local communities. Community policing sees the police as part of a local partnership working with other agencies that have an interest in fighting crime—schools, businesses, social services, local authorities and local community organisations. Therefore, the involvement becomes much more than law enforcement: it is also about preventing crime and tackling its causes. All over Britain, Labour councils are leading the way on crime prevention and have exemplified that approach.
The reason for our approach is perfectly simple. Only one crime in 50 leads to a conviction. Therefore, any policy that deals simply with catching the criminal after the crime has been committed is one-sided and incapable of offering a solution. Up to a point the Government agree, but they say that there is no need for statutory responsibility to be placed on local authorities. They simply say, "Let it happen and if it happens, fine." If it does not happen, they do not intend to act.
Precisely that argument, however, was rejected by the Government's own report—the Morgan report, published three years ago in 1991. That report expressly rejected the ad hoc approach taken by the Government. It said that, as the provider of a range of services that have a direct impact on the causes of crime, the local authority is a natural focus for the co-ordination—in collaboration with the police—of the broad range of activities intended to improve community safety. It concluded:
local authorities, working in conjunction with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and


stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at a local level a multi-agency approach to community safety.
In other words, the very report set up by the Government's own standing conference on crime prevention—the very people who were asked to analyse the way forward for crime prevention—came out with a solution—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for interrupting the proceedings.
Is it in order for a Government Whip to ask one hon. Member to leave, and then walk around the Chamber and ask another to leave as well? Is it not a fact that the entire Conservative party is not the slightest bit interested in law and order and crime prevention?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to confirm what my hon. Friend said: I also saw what occurred. The Whip went over to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), and subsequently turned round from where he is now sitting.
As you know, Madam Speaker, for some time Conservative Members have been asking when they will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The Whips are now deliberately organising matters so that not a single Tory Back Bencher is left in the Chamber. That shows their complete lack of interest in any matter concerning the police and criminality. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this. I do not know what the Whips are up to; personally, I am riveted by the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

Mr. Blair: I am delighted, Madam Speaker. It is a pity that the attention of more Conservative Members is not on my speech, and on the issue of crime and crime prevention. It is interesting that Opposition Members are the ones who are really talking about such issues.
The Morgan report set out a strong framework for crime prevention. It said that such a framework was absolutely necessary, and that without it the policies of crime prevention would not be co-ordinated in the right way. That is not merely the view of the report; it is the view of ACPO and every other police body.
Far from agreeing with the report, the Government are undermining the position of community policing. First, they are to set national objectives centrally, rather than allowing local priorities to take precedence. Secondly, as was pointed out today by senior police officers and chief constables, their review of the core functions of the police has provoked a widespread fear that they intend to strip out their community service functions, leaving only those connected with law enforcement.
The dangers of that can be seen from experiments in crime prevention all over the country. There are examples everywhere of the fact that crime prevention—carried out on a proper, structured basis and led by police and local authorities—can actually work. In Reading, crime reduction groups have been set up under the Thames Valley policing initiative, resulting in a 50 per cent. drop in crime in certain areas. In the King's Cross area, as a result of work done by a partnership of local businesses,

police and the local authority, drug dealers have been driven off the streets and the place has been made safer for local people to inhabit. In Wigan—again, as a result of a partnership between local authority and police—vandalism in schools was dramatically reduced; that has now resulted in a £250,000 reduction in the insurance premiums paid by Wigan schools. If such examples, from those and from other authorities throughout the country, were built on and brought within a proper framework, they could lead the way in developing proper crime prevention measures.
That is not prescriptive, but it sets a clear plan within which community policing can develop. Why do the Government not carry it out? Their own report said that it should be done, every body connected with policing advocates it, and local authorities want such a duty to be put on them. Why do the Government resist the recommendation of their own working party? The answer is: dogma about local government. There is no other reason. If anybody but local authorities had been given the task of co-ordinating the measures, the Government would have agreed overnight. But because local authorities were given the lead role, they did not.
4.15 pm
Now that the Government are spending more money through unelected, unaccountable quangos than through local government, it is surely a scandal that they are unwilling to give local authorities that statutory responsibility. Had they done so, it would have provided a boost for crime prevention, and that could have been happening over the past two or three years.
The public are entitled to better. Every part of our communities should be mobilised in the fight against crime, and should be entitled to the type of partnership that has worked successfully where it has been tried.
It is the Opposition who take the issues of crime and of law and order seriously, and the Opposition who are prepared to put in place the proper statutory framework, backed by Government, to fight crime in our local communities. If the Government and Conservative Members vote against the new clause, they will be showing that they are just not serious about law and order today.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I suspect that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has come to the House to set down a personal marker on law and order and crime prevention. [Interruption.] The presence of a number of his supporters on the Opposition Benches makes it clear that the hon. Gentleman's appearance at the Dispatch Box today has been trailed as a landmark contribution on law and order. Yet all that we have heard, other than some interest in the Morgan report, is one bland generalisation after another.
It is little wonder that the shadow Cabinet national executive monitoring group has asked the hon. Gentleman to redraft his law and order document, and in particular to beef up the crime prevention section. Perhaps that is what he intended to do today. But if the hon. Gentleman really is an advocate of law and order, and seriously wishes to challenge the achievements of the Home Secretary in that regard, he will have to explain to the House why he voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in 1984, the Public Order Act in 1986 and the Criminal Justice Acts in 1988 and 1991, and why he abstained on Third Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill now passing through Parliament.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield will have to concede that virtually every one of his suggestions, except his recommendation that we provide a statutory obligation for local authorities on crime prevention, is already in practice. When he talked about the Thames Valley scheme and others, including the scheme in Wigan, of course the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that there is no need for any such statutory obligation, because the partnerships already exist; they are already working successfully without the Morgan recommendation.
No doubt the House will recall that the Government have taken up with enthusiasm some of the recommendations of the Morgan report. Morgan emphasised partnership. No Government have ever done more than we have on partnership for crime prevention at local level, and the partnerships are already working. What the hon. Gentleman provides instead is his theme song about Morgan.
All that would lead to is not greater crime prevention, but an auction; a series of bids for extra funding to do a job which is already being done locally. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Bill and reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend has set in train already provide for locally focused policing plans, so that local interests may be taken into account. That is precisely what exists already in the Bill, and it has been greeted with enthusiasm by those involved in crime prevention up and down the country.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I wish him well in his search for another job. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I see him as eternally youthful, pleasantly earnest and capable of singing a catchy refrain, but not necessarily with much substance. I think that he thinks that he is the Labour party's answer to Cliff Richard. Unlike Cliff, he has not succeeded in getting anything into the charts, and certainly his law and order single will not get there, either.
Every force and every police authority—and, indeed, every local authority—already acknowledges the importance of crime prevention. We do not need the statutory requirement. The prevention of crime is already one of the fundamental roles of the police. It has been since 1829. To single it out now as one specific function, as an addition to the provision that sets out the duties of police authorities, would not make any sense at all. The Government strategy in dealing with crime already provides for partnership, and it is working successfully. I have already made it clear that the whole community has to play its part in crime prevention. Until the hon. Gentleman realises that everyone must have a vested interest in preventing crime, that everyone must involve himself or herself in crime prevention schemes, he will never understand that simply imposing a statutory obligation would encourage people to shrug off that responsibility.
The spread of crime prevention initiatives at local and national level is testimony to the success of the partnership approach. The House will be familiar with the success of the national board on crime prevention, with the work of the ministerial group on crime prevention, with Crime Concern, started by the Government and with the success of closed-circuit television schemes brought in by many partnerships. The House will be familiar with the growing success of the parish constable scheme, of more than

130,000 neighbourhood watch schemes and other watch schemes, of the success of crime prevention panels and of estate action. The list could go on and on.
In every police authority, in every area, strategies are being developed for targeting crime and are linking with local community groups, with local authorities, with local businesses and with individuals to ensure that crime prevention schemes are initiated and expanded. It does not need an additional statutory push of the kind that Morgan recommended and, now, the hon. Gentleman recommends. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
May I now turn to amendment No. 81, about which I have better news for the hon. Member for Sedgefield? As the Bill stands, the chairman of a police authority is to be appointed at the annual meeting. That means that there is a risk of the chairmanship changing part of the way through the budgetary process, if the annual meeting has to be held between December and January. That seems to be a perfectly good argument in support of amendment No. 81, and the Government are therefore prepared to accept it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: What a disappointing speech from the Minister. I suppose that it was not to be expected that the Home Secretary would dignify the debate about crime prevention by speaking himself, but the fact that he sat there and allowed the matter to be handled by a junior Minister in such a manner was testimony to the Government's low level of interest in crime prevention. We are quite familiar with that.
The Minister's first four minutes of roustabout might have amused a Conservative party wine and cheese gathering, but would certainly not have impressed anyone who was interested in the reduction of crime in this country.
The reality is that the Minister and, indeed, the Government have failed to grasp the significance of crime prevention in the battle to reduce crime. They do not speak on these matters with any great authority, having presided over an explosion of crime during their tenure of office. Successive Home Secretaries have asked the House to believe that the latest piece of criminal justice legislation would be the panacea, and when Opposition Members have not necessarily accepted that view, that has been held up against us as evidence of our lack of faith.
After crime has doubled in this country, it is scarcely surprising that we regard the implementation of yet another criminal justice Bill as unlikely to be the panacea. The truth is that crime prevention is one of the most hopeful, purposeful and effective ways of dealing with a scourge which afflicts society and which the Government have ignored too long. It is not enough to say, "We favour partnership; let a thousand flowers bloom," but to give no leadership whatever in the area of crime prevention.
I would take issue with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) only if he sought to imply—I do not think that he did, because his speech was peculiarly non-partisan—that it is only Labour authorities that have been effective. The truth is that Liberal Democrat authorities throughout the country have promoted effective schemes of crime prevention, even against a background of serious cuts in Government expenditure which have borne down directly on those areas of discretionary expenditure which include crime prevention.
Sutton council is a case in point. Even in a year when its budget had to stand still, the council thought it right to appoint a crime prevention officer. But the Government have done nothing—

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has treated us to a tirade against the Government, saying how little they have done and how crime has increased. Now that our serious crime figures show a decline, can he name a single country in western Europe where overall crime has decreased?

Mr. Maclennan: The encouraging short-term trend is certainly not statistically significant, or internationally comparable—as the Home Secretary was frequently at pains to argue when he was shrugging off, month by month, the most appalling crime increases in Europe.

Mr. James Clappison: Would the hon. Gentleman care to justify his comment about statistical insignificance? In the Metropolitan area, residential burglaries have fallen by 16 per cent., and in my constituency, which is part of that area, house burglaries have decreased by 50 per cent. Is that not good news for householders?

Mr. Maclennan: It is excellent news, but it does not establish a trend. I hope that it will be the forerunner of a general improvement in the effectiveness of community policing—an area in which the Metropolitan police, especially with Operation Bumblebee, have shown a lead.
The fact is that the Government have turned a deaf ear, not only to parties in the House that have advocated strong crime prevention measures, but to their own advisers. I will not labour the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield eloquently and cogently made—that to shrug aside the advice of the Morgan report is highly irresponsible and does not impress those who are interested in results, as opposed to Government rhetoric.
The Government ought to be analysing local crime prevention schemes, drawing together the information about what is effective, disseminating best practice, encouraging it and exhorting those who are working as volunteers, or in commercial groups, or in local government, to come together and build on best practice.
Even without Government resources at our disposal, a year ago the Liberal Democrats published evidence of what we were doing in our local authorities, showing what was effective and disseminating it among other authorities, regardless of their political complexion. We suggested that they start to do likewise and that they come up with other ways of doing even better. The Government have subsequently come up with comparable ideas of their own.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I was extremely interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of disseminating best practice on crime prevention and I entirely agree with him. Is he not aware that Crime Concern, an organisation which the Government have set up and are funding, and which he should be aware of, because its chairman is president of the Liberal Democrats —demonstrating our non-partisan approach to these matters—is doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman has said should be done? It is doing it effectively and disseminating best practice about crime prevention across the country. Does not the hon. Gentleman know about that?

Mr. Maclennan: Of course I know about the excellent work done by Crime Concern under the leadership of Tim Clement Jones, who, as it happens, is not the president, but a distinguished member, of my party. I am also aware that the resources that the Government have made available to Crime Concern are not of the magnitude that would enable it to do the work that could and should be undertaken by the Home Office in drawing together information.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Surely the Government should recognise that Britain has the finest network of local authorities, which could operate crime prevention more successfully than central Government can. All advice and information should generally be available through the local government network.

Mr. Maclennan: I am a strong believer in decentralising authorities in these matters, but the Home Office and its counterpart in Scotland have a role to play in ensuring that the best experience of local government and local police authorities is made widely available, and that that best practice is followed and added to by further and better examples.
The Under-Secretary seemed to sweep aside the central importance of crime prevention in policing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that that reflects very much the Minister's attitude to policing. One is increasingly fearful that the Government intend to tackle crime only after it has been committed, to put to one side the causes of crime and crime prevention, and, possibly, to contract out most of the rest of the matters that are handled by the police, which play such a significant role in making the civil order in which we live one where people are not smitten by fear and the expectation that crime will blight their lives.
The proposal in the new clause was canvassed in Committee and I spoke strongly in favour of giving police authorities a specific and express duty to treat crime prevention as a priority. The Government have been only too willing to impose national objectives on police authorities, a trend which I deplore and regard as counter-productive to community policing. Crime prevention, however, does not fall into the sort of national objective category that the Government appear to favour. It goes to the core of what policing is about.
I agree with only one thing that the Minister said—it is implicit in policing that the police must be concerned about crime prevention. Such a general statement, however, goes nowhere near to addressing the importance of the task, the importance of the allocation of responsibilities and resources for crime prevention, and the importance of the involvement of the community in that task, wherein lies the best hope of reducing the impact of crime on the lives of our citizens.

Mr. Blair: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the Minister's comments.
I thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 81, but I should deal with his central argument. As I understand it, he agrees that partnerships should be set up throughout the country, but says that that is already happening. The fact of the matter is that it is happening not everywhere but only in certain parts. It should happen everywhere.
Why do not the Government give the lead? If they were prepared to place these partnerships in a proper framework, there would be a chance of extending them throughout the country.
The Home Secretary mentioned Crime Concern. I understand that it is fully behind the Morgan report and its recommendation that local authorities should be given statutory responsibility. Ultimately, we are driven back to the conclusion that the recommendation is being resisted merely because local authorities were given this responsibility. It is dogma standing in the way of progress. We should have none of it: we should vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 280.

Division No. 281]
[4.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainger, Nick
Dafis, Cynog


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dalyell, Tam


Allen, Graham
Darling, Alistair


Alton, David
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beggs, Roy
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Roger
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Church, Judith
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hodge, Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey





Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, William


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prescott, John


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Janner, Greville
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rooker, Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Loyden, Eddie
Simpson, Alan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McLeish, Henry
Snape, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Soley, Clive


McMaster, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel


MacShane, Denis
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McWilliam, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Trimble, David


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Meale, Alan
Walley, Joan


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wareing, Robert N


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Watson, Mike


Milburn, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Miller, Andrew
Wigley, Dafydd


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wilson, Brian


Morgan, Rhodri
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. John Spellar.


O'Brien, William (Normanton)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)






Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Cheryl


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hague, William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Hayes, Jerry


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butcher, John
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carttiss, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)





Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Page, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

PUBLIC INQUIRY ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF POLICE AREAS

'After section 23 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Public inquiry on reduction in number of police areas

'23A.—(1) This section has effect where—

(a) the Secretary of State has proposed an alteration to the area of a police force which would have the effect of reducing the number of such areas in Schedule IA to this Act;
(b) an objection has been duly delivered in accordance with section 21A(4) above; and
(c) that objection has not been withdrawn within three weeks of the Secretary of State having given notice under that subsection that he does not accept it.


(2) In any case to which subsection (1) above applies the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of any objection by a person appointed by him (who shall not be an officer of police or of any Government department).


(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person holding the inquiry before determining whether the proposed reduction in the number of areas should be made and if so subject to what modifications, if any.
(4) Where a proposal has been subject to a public inquiry in accordance with this section, the Secretary of State shall not lay a draft order under section 21B(3) above until 7 days after he has laid the report of that public inquiry before Parliament.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 5℄Metropolitan Police Force—
' .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made not later than 30th June 1997 provide that there shall be a police authority for the metropolitan police district.
(2) A police authority established under this section shall be a body corporate to be known as the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(3) A police authority established under this section shall secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for its area.
(4) A police authority established under subsection (1) above shall have a scheme of membership specified in accordance with section 3A of the Police Act 1964 and the Secretary of State shall before issuing any order setting out such a scheme consider the exercise of his power in subsection (2) of that section.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a council is a relevant council in relation to a police authority if it is the council for a London borough.
(6) Schedules 1B and 1C to the 1964 Act shall apply with respect to appointments to a police authority established under this section.'.
Amendment No. 2, in clause 13, page 7, line 25, at end insert
'and where a reduction is proposed section (Public inquiry on reduction in number of police areas) shall apply.'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 8, line 42, at end insert
'provided that a further notice of the revised proposals shall have been given to the recipients of the original notice under subsection (1) of this section and that the recipients of the further notice shall have a further period of four weeks beginning with the date of the further notice within which to lodge objections with the Secretary of State, who, on receipt of such objections, shall follow the procedure outlined in subsection (4) of this section.'.

Mr. Michael: The new clauses and amendments relate to the accountability and independence of the police. The House should be aware that that accountability and independence are under threat as a result of the Bill. The essence of policing is that the police are the police of the people, not of the state. That is the message of the Association of Chief Police Officers, but those words should have a resonance with every hon. Member and with the general public.
Policing is not through imposition from the centre, but by the consent of the local community who are represented for policing purposes by the locally elected members who sit on the police authority. It is through the police authority, constituted with a majority of elected members, that a legitimate relationship exists between the police and the community.
With regard to the office of chief constable, and again according to ACPO,
The Chief Constable of the police force is accountable to the community through the police authority, but is operationally independent. That independent role is vital if the integrity of policing in this country is to remain.
Those words should also have resonance for every hon. Member. Accountability and independence are threatened by a Bill which places great powers in the hands of the

Home Secretary to influence and undermine the independence of the chief constable and to influence and undermine the independence and accountability of the police authority.
New clause 2 seeks to ensure that if a local authority or a local police authority objects to a proposal to merge police forces, there will be a local inquiry and, as a result of that local inquiry, the Home Secretary will be required to consider the report of the independent person holding the inquiry before he reaches his conclusions. According to the new clause, the Home Secretary shall not lay a draft until he has had time to consider the views of that individual and the outcome of the inquiry before he places his conclusions before Parliament. That basic principle is contained in the Police Act 1964, but the centralising Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill seems to remove that principle from the statute book. That is wrong and we seek to restore it through the new clause.
Through new clause 5, we seek to ensure that, not later than June 1997—a date which is not far distant, but far distant enough to allow for planning—there shall be a police authority for London. It is wrong that there is no police authority for London. The Home Secretary does not fulfil that function except in relation to statute. He does not fulfil it in reality. It is right that we should state today that there shall be a police authority for London.
The amendments grouped with new clause 2 seek to ensure that notice shall be given of revised proposals. There are also minor amendments to improve the quality of the Bill and the accountability and independence of local police forces.
The effect of clause 13 would be to repeal schedule 3 of the Police Act 1964. That schedule requires the Home Secretary to set up a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him—so the Home Secretary still has that choice—if a police authority or council objects to a proposed scheme for policing or, in other words, a merger.
Mergers threaten the police forces of this country. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Home Secretary, he was part of the centralising tendency. There is an influence which is seeking to bring police forces under the greater control of the Home Secretary—which is what this Bill does—and to merge local police forces into large regional police forces in which the character of individual areas and individual police forces will be lost and submerged. We wish to resist that. If the Minister is true to the comments that he made in Committee when he insisted that there was no plan to merge police forces, and to the comments of his ministerial colleague in the House of Lords where an assurance was given that there was no intention, within many years, to merge police forces, he must accept the new clause.
The Government's position as expressed in the House of Lords is that the Home Secretary would not propose to alter police areas unless he was satisfied that that was in the interests of police efficiency and effectiveness, but we cannot take that for granted, because the Home Secretary during his period of office has taken many steps which have not been in the interests of police efficiency and effectiveness.
If the Home Secretary does not accept the objections, he must give reasons. If he wishes to proceed, an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament is necessary. That is true. The argument that we heard in Committee from the Minister was that public inquiries would cause delay. I repeat the point that I made to the Minister in Committee:


delay occurs only if the Government want to go ahead with mergers. If they do not wish to go ahead with mergers, there is no need for the expedited course for merging allowed for in the Bill.
Let us consider the hurdles that the Home Secretary would have to overcome. According to the Minister, the Home Secretary considers proposals for amalgamation or alteration of police areas carefully and is bound to give reasons for rejecting objections. We expect that. Is the Minister suggesting that the Home Secretary should not have to give serious thought to proposals? However, it would be desirable for the Home Secretary to expose his reasoning to open discussion in a public inquiry, which would allow people to express the views of the locality and would allow the views of the police in that area to be heard.
The Government have expressed enthusiasm, which we heard again from the Minister a few moments ago, for the involvement of the local public in policing. The Government support, as we do, neighbourhood watch, other kinds of watch, parish constables, increasing the number of special constables, multi-agency crime prevention and police-community consultative groups. The interests of local democracy in those approaches should be preserved in any change to police areas, and that requirement should outweigh the requisites of administrative convenience.
An affirmative resolution in Parliament is required for a change to be made, but that is not a safeguard because an order would contain a mass of detail and would be unamendable. There would thus be a dilemma if a particular point—such as the the siting of headquarters, which can be a very important element in local decision making—needed attention. Members would be under pressure from Ministers to approve the order, and not to reject it so that the procedure has to be started again. Moreover, it is extremely rare for an order not to be approved.
With regard to delay, it seems that some public inquiries in the 1960s took several months and the Minister used that point to great dramatic effect in Committee. In fact, the inquiries took several months, but implementation took two to three years or longer. The greater part of the delay was caused by implementation rather than by the period taken up by the public inquiry. In one case cited by the Minister it was conceded that the public inquiry lasted only 13 days.
It is the quality of proposals that matters, not the quantity of proposals. The Minister made a case for making public inquiries more effective and targeted, and we agree with that. However, he has not made a case for sweeping away public inquiries and trying to still the voice of the police and the community when considering decisions on the future of a police force.
Amalgamation orders last a long time. The period of reorganisation of any organisation, particularly the police, is a period of great disruption to the service and the quality of the service provided locally. It should therefore not be entered into without great thought. That is why a period of uncertainty is a price well worth paying to be sure that we get the answer right. The basic principle should be, "Don't reorganise unless you are absolutely certain." Consistent with that is the requirement to have a public inquiry so that the public as well as the Minister can be fully informed and take a balanced view of any proposals.
It must be helpful for the Home Secretary to hear any case against amalgamation argued through an inquiry which offers the possibility of oral discussion and

exchanges of views. With today's police forces—irrespective of mergers—we are dealing with larger areas and populations than was the case after the Police Act 1964. Cleveland has an area of 59,000 acres and Dyfed Powys has more than 1 million acres, despite being the smallest police force. Gwent has a population of nearly 500,000, while the West Midlands area has about 2.5 million. We are talking about much larger police forces than those which were merged in the 1960s. The arguments that applied in respect of delay, of which the Minister made great play, therefore do not apply.
Although the marginal note to clause 13 is "Alteration of police areas", it is obvious that mergers and amalgamations are intended. They will make the police service more remote from local communities. I repeat my question to the Minister because he did not answer it successfully during the hours we spent debating these issues in Committee. If there are no plans to make amalgamations or to merge police forces, or to have vast and remote regional police authorities, why introduce such drastic streamlining methods in the Bill?
The Government's continued resistance to incorporating a provision for a public inquiry is ominous. I must tell the Minister that, pleasant though his responses often are, we distrust the Government's intentions and those not only of the present Home Secretary but of future Home Secretaries—following the imminent reshuffle—as to the way in which they could use the powers in the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is speaking while the Local Government Commission is sitting. Whatever the outcome of the Local Government Commission, there will be a marked change in the boundaries. Is it not prudent of the Home Secretary to take powers which would allow the police authorities to be adjusted to the new local authorities?

5 pm

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Standing Committee, and I can forgive him for regarding that as a valid point. The changes to local government in Wales, for instance, have been decided by the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which was passed by the House. Later tonight, the Minister will seek powers—this will undoubtedly be subject to a little debate—to deal with the new local government boundaries in Wales.
That is different from the power that I am contesting here, which is the power to merge police forces without the need to have regard to new local government boundaries, without a public inquiry and without having to take account of the views of local people and the police who deal with a particular area. That is the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for giving me an opportunity to make that absolutely clear. The point is that if there is a change to police boundaries which has everyone singing and dancing in the streets because it will improve the standard of policing, a public inquiry will not be necessary. The issue arises only where there is an objection by the appropriate bodies.
The problem is that we must deduce from the Government's resistance to the minor improvements which we have sought that further centralisation and further increases in the size and remoteness of police forces is intended. Those considerations place in context the denial


of natural justice, including the removal of the provision for a public inquiry, especially when significant changes to the most sensitive of public services are intended.
As for the situation in London, it is outrageous that democratic accountability does not exist in relation to the police in London. I should make it clear that our criticism is not of the police or of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, but of the Home Secretary for failing to take the opportunity to create an accountable body. I know that my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity of meeting police in various parts of the capital recently, and those who represent London feel particularly strongly on this point.
The police seek a partnership approach, which includes working with the boroughs in London as well as with the local community. The police respect the important role of local government. Unfortunately, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said in a previous debate, that respect is not shown by Tory Members. The missing players in such local partnerships are, as usual, the Government. 
Technically, the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, but that cannot and does not work. In effect, accountability is in the hands of Whitehall for most of the time, apart from the odd annual occasion when the Home Secretary comes out of the box to speak to the House. That shows disrespect for democracy. In a decade of democracy—I think that it can be characterised in that way—when accountability is extending widely in society, particularly to police forces in the former Soviet Union, in South Africa and on the west bank, it seems odd that London does not have proper accountability and democracy. The former Chancellor promised it and then snatched it away from us within a short period. That shows a disgraceful lack of confidence in the people of London.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am following closely and understanding to some extent the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I accept that there is a case for making police authorities accountable to elected representatives. However, one of the things that has always irked me is that, like hon. Members representing London, I can table parliamentary questions and raise debates about policing in London before the ultimate arbiter of democracy—this House—but when I want to question the operational conduct of the Humberside police, I cannot do so. There is no opportunity for me as an elected representative to ask the Humberside police to account to me; yet perversely—ironically, I would argue—London is the only case in which hon. Members, through the Home Secretary, can ask the police authority to account to us. We cannot do that in the counties. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Michael: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) pointed out, it is a fat lot of use the Home Secretary being accountable, as he refers operational matters to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He is not accountable to the House for operational matters. 
If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has trouble contacting the chief constable in his police authority, I would be happy to tell him how to go about it. I know that my hon. Friends spend a considerable amount of time talking to members of their police

authorities and to chief constables, and find that they are ever responsive to our concerns. If the hon. Gentleman has the good fortune to be in an area where the majority of members of the police authority are Labour, he will have an excellent police authority—I have every confidence in that. Indeed, I visited that police authority and discussed some of the policing issues which I believe are important in every part of the country. 
Two issues are paramount: there should be a body that is accountable to local people, and the Home Secretary should be accountable to the House for his actions. We get a fat lot of answers on many of those issues as well. We need that accountability, and it is wrong that it does not exist for London, as it does for other parts of the country. 
Finally, the Minister in this House and the Minister in another place have used these words—I quote the Minister in another place:
My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 324.]
If there is a belief that mergers of police forces should take place, that should be tested by a public inquiry which gives local people and local police forces the opportunity to have their voice heard before a decision is taken. That is why this debate about accountability, responsibility and the independence of the police force is so important.

Mr. Maclennan: I rise to support new clause 2, the first proposal to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke, which calls for inquiries to be retained in the case of expected amalgamations. When the matter was first discussed in another place and Lord Harris of Greenwich spoke about the need for public local inquiries in the event of proposals for amalgamation, he was assured by the Minister that he was looking for slugs under stones. 
It was suggested that the prospect of amalgamation was unreal. Earl Ferrers said:
He says that we are producing arrangements for amalgamations, but we have no intention of doing any. I have no hesitation in telling the Committee what the position is. My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 February 1994; Vol. 551, c. 323–24.]
In the few months that have elapsed since then, the Government's true intentions have become much more clear.
Only this morning, I received a letter only this morning from the chief constable of Gwent constabulary, Tony Burden, expressing alarm about the Government's intentions for amalgamation in Wales. He asked me to agree that the principle that nothing useful can be gained from police force amalgamations, and that policing as a service should remain local, should be imported into our discussions today. He is right to be worried about that prospect in Wales. 
The Minister communicated with me—and undoubtedly with other hon. Members, including perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—in a letter dated 30 June, outlining intentions to amalgamate forces in Wales. We shall have an opportunity later to consider those proposals in detail. I do not propose to dwell on the matter now, except to say that the Government have not played a wholly frank hand during the discussion of the procedures for amalgamation. Throughout the deliberations, we have


been told that the Government have nothing so sinister in mind—it was simply that contingency arrangements were being made. Even before the Bill is out of the House, we are being told of the Government's present and, indeed, urgent intentions to do just what Lord Harris spoke of.
Inquiries play a significant part in the argument for amalgamations and in ensuring that local considerations are properly taken into account. Major amalgamations took place in the 1960s when my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was Home Secretary. Local inquiries were carried out. No one argued that the major programme of amalgamations was in any significant or serious way damaged or that the police service was adversely affected by the delays caused by the local inquiry system. It was seen to be reasonable and it did not affect the efficiency of the relevant police forces. 
The Minister has not so far produced any good reason why we cannot adhere to the practice that I have outlined. It appears to be a strengthening of central authority to dictate the disposition of the police authorities without proper checks and controls of a democratic nature and to exclude from the deliberations precisely the local interests which would be ventilated in local inquiries. I hope that, even at this late stage in the progress of the Bill, the Government will concede the force of the case for the use of local inquiries. 
The arguments on the other amendments, which deal with the case for a local police authority for London, have been canvassed many times in the House and fought by Ministers of the present Government wearing different hats. There can be no dogmatic view against the desirability of such a police authority. Certain functions of the police in the Metropolitan area might properly remain within the oversight of the Home Office, although I must say that Home Secretaries have not shown themselves to be notably successfully in preventing intrusions into the royal palaces or always to be the most effective police authority to deal with international matters of diplomacy and the protection of the Government. Those cases have traditionally been deployed against a police authority for London.
I believe that those arguments have been overtaken by events and that there is now a strong balance of opinion within the police force itself and among the public in favour of the development of a police authority for London. That should be given expression at the earliest possible date. I therefore propose to support that proposal, too.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that the House will allow me to clarify some remarks that I made in the short debate on new clauses 14 to 17 in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He asked me whether the new clauses applied to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I made an error. I apologise to the House. New clauses 14 to 17 would apply where English, Welsh or Scottish police officers served with the RUC, but they do not apply to officers of the RUC serving abroad, because the clauses amend the Police Act 1964, which does not extend to Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point. 
New clauses 2 and 5 deal with the issue of public inquiries and amalgamations, which was debated twice in another place and twice during the recent Commons

Committee stage. On all those occasions, amendments were defeated. I believe that the arguments against the new clauses are overwhelming. The procedures in the Bill for altering police areas are thorough but not cumbersome. They involve five separate stages. That gives full opportunity for any objections to be raised and fully considered. New clause 2 would add a sixth stage to all the others by requiring my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to hold a public inquiry which could produce an interminable delay. 
The House will be aware that previous experience of public inquiries in the 1960s showed that they caused delay and were often convened to consider fairly trivial issues that did not add anything useful to the process of considering changes to force areas. Those delays sometimes had adverse effects on police morale. 
We have no plans to change the number of police forces. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked me to confirm the point again. No sensible Government could promise to preserve intact every police force in perpetuity, but we have no plans to make any changes. If we made the promise that the hon. Gentleman a little mischievously sought from me this afternoon and in Committee, the effect would be that there would never be any change in the number of police forces. If that promise had been given in 1964 when the Bill that became the 1964 Act was debated, we would still have 125 separate police forces. For those reasons, I urge the House to disregard the entreaties of the hon. Gentleman. 
I mentioned five stages. Before anything else happens, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must be satisfied that any alteration would be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Secondly, he has to give interested parties formal notice of his proposals. Thirdly, those interested parties have a minimum of four months to consider the proposals. Fourthly, when my right hon. and learned Friend receives any representations from those who have been consulted, he is under a statutory obligation to consider them. If he still wishes to proceed after all that, he must make proposals in an order which must be laid before Parliament. Hence, we do not need a sixth stage. 
New clause 5 deals with a police authority for London. Successive Governments of different political complexions have made it absolutely clear over the past 165 years that there should be special and separate arrangements for policing the capital. It is not an accident of history that the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan police. We have had a developed system of local government for more than a century, but we have consistently declined to give local government the responsibility for policing. 
We are talking not about party politics but about questions and judgments of vital national interest which go beyond local government. The differences between the Metropolitan police and other forces are not simply a matter of size—although we should not overlook the fact that it is a huge body of men and women, 13 times larger than the average police force. The differences also arise from the Metropolitan police force's unique functions, which include national functions such as anti-terrorist activities, functions undertaken on behalf of the whole police service, and local functions of vital national concern. 
The Government have publicly examined the various possibilities, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. I make no apology for that. It was right that


we should do so. In doing so, we decided that we should stick with the status quo. It is impracticable and, in some cases, impossible to draw a clear and permanent line between national and local interests in policing London—hence the arrangements as they now stand. So our conclusion is that the Home Secretary must remain the police authority for the Metropolitan police, to safeguard the national interest in their work and make them fully accountable to Parliament, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminded the House a few moments ago.
We are not, however, simply maintaining the status quo, because we are establishing a new non-party political body, the Metropolitan Police Committee, outside the Home Office, to help my right hon. and learned Friend and Londoners to get the best from the reforms. We believe that the new committee will add real value to the existing arrangements. It will help my right hon. and learned Friend to apply the reforms administratively to the Metropolitan police without disturbing or confusing the direct lines of accountability from the force to the Home Secretary and Parliament.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 287.

282]
[5.20 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Austin-Walker, John
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dafis, Cynog


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Berry, Roger
Darling, Alistair


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blair, Tony
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Blunkett, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Denham, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dixon, Don


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H.


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Enright, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Etherington, Bill


Cann, Jamie
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fatchett, Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Church, Judith
Flynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek





Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fyfe, Maria
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Galbraith, Sam
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Meale, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Graham, Thomas
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Liddell, Helen
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


LIwyd, Elfyn
Spellar, John


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Timms, Stephen


McKelvey, William
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Turner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Tyler, Paul


Maclennan, Robert
Vaz, Keith


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


MacShane, Denis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McWilliam, John
Wareing, Robert N


Madden, Max
Watson, Mike


Mahon, Alice
Wicks, Malcolm






Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Wright, Dr Tony



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duncan, Alan


Ancram, Michael
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Garnier, Edward


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

OFFICE OF CONSTABLE IN A DESIGNATED POLICE FORCE

'.—(1) A person may be attested as a police constable only if he serves in a police force which is either a force constituted under a Police Act or in a force, designated under this section by the Secretary of State.
(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Secretary of State may by order and after consultation with persons representative of police authorities and chief officers of police specify the jurisdiction and responsibilities of a constable.
(3) No order may be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) A duly attested constable serving in a designated force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable under a Police Act but only—

(a) where no other constable is present and available to exercise his powers as a constable and he is satisfied that the circumstances require him to exercise those powers and privileges, or
(b) in pursuance of a request for assistance from another police constable serving in a force constituted under a Police Act.


(5) The Secretary of State may by order apply such provisions as he considers appropriate of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to constables serving in a designated force.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a "Police Act" means the Police Act 1964, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 or the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1970.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We now come to an extremely important issue which was debated in Committee in respect of police forces other than the ordinary police forces. Those are sometimes called Home Office police forces, but they should be regarded as the police forces of local people, which we have in different functions in the country.
The new clause deals with the office of constable, and asks what a constable or a police officer is. It relates to the confidence of the public in recognising a police officer and knowing that that somebody whom they have identified as a police officer is, in fact, a constable. The new clause is designed to meet the Minister's objections to some of the ways in which we proposed to tackle the smaller, non-regional and non-local police forces. I refer hon. Members to the debates in Committee, and particularly to some very well-informed speeches by my hon. Friends. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were made at that stage.
It is more important than ever that we should know how to recognise a police officer. In an age of vigilantes, core functions, national targets, privatisation and centralised control within Whitehall, it is important that we know who is a police officer. I underline the fact that we are talking about the police of the public, and not the police of the state.
The new clause seeks to determine who is a constable and what is a police force, and the public have a right to know with certainty who fulfils those categories. The new clause states that somebody can be recognised as a police officer only
if he serves in a police force which is either a force constituted under a Police Act or in a force designated under this section by the Secretary of State.

That seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward way of dealing with the issue, and it also takes into account the problems raised by the Minister in Committee.
It is only right that there should be something specific about the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the constable. It is also right that we should deal with the difficulties facing members of the British Transport police. The new clause says that if somebody is a designated and trained police officer who has the responsibility and experience of a police officer, he should have
all the powers and privileges of a constable under a Police Act but only where no other constable is present.
If an officer from the British Transport police was on the way to Ystrad Mynach and an accident or incident occurred which required the help of a police officer, that officer should be able to act until a member of the South Wales police force was available to fulfil the functions of policing. That British Transport police officer, or an officer of any of the other non-regional, non-local police forces, should have no doubt that he has the powers of a constable, and members of the public should be in no doubt about his status and his powers to act.
A variety of other arguments were made in Committee, and I do not intend to rehearse them, but I was disappointed in Committee by the way in which Conservative Members sought to diminish and minimise the importance of the issues. The Minister made reference to the Barnet dog handlers and, as someone who was bitten by an alsatian in Barnet at the age of 13, I intend to find out more about that body and why its strength at present is zero.
The Minister said in Committee that it was a centralising idea to bring the forces together and to combine them under a single authority. That is not required by the new clause. We have overcome the difficulties that the Minister brought out, but the choice is clear for the Government. The Minister should say either that the organisations concerned are police forces staffed by constables and that they should be brought within the ambit of the relevant law, or that they are not police forces. In that case, the Minister should describe how they must be governed and regulated, because it is certain that they should be governed and regulated in some way.
If members of the forces are police officers, they should come within the proper ambit of the law. If not, they should be acknowledged as something different. The Minister failed to tackle those issues in Committee and I hope he will tackle them today, perhaps by accepting the new clause.
The Minister also said in Committee that some of the constables outside the local police forces are in tiny forces. That is true, but what does it mean? Does it mean that because they are small, such forces should be outside the scope of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Should they be outside the jurisdiction and supervision of the inspectorate, the training requirements for police officers and any formal supervision? Is that what the Minister maintains on the Floor of House, as he did in Committee? I hope not.
There is a need for certainty to be given to the public and to those who should be recognised as police officers in the vital role of constable, wherever and under whatever conditions they exercise those functions. The new clause would give that clarity, and I appeal to the Minister to accept it.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is at his most dangerous when he says that he appeals to me. I have listened to his entreaties, but I fear that I must disappoint him, as I did when we debated this subject in Committee.
New clause 3 is an only slightly rejigged version of what we discussed in Committee. A range of useful, complementary and—in many cases—rather small policing arrangements are already in place. The House has already given necessary powers and provided jurisdiction to those individuals concerned, and also provided a system of complaints where that is needed.
We do not want or need the Home Department gainsaying those powers and providing a top-heavy, centralised system. That would not serve non-Home Office forces well. It is not a question of a legislative gap. The House made wise legislative arrangements for the various undertakings and classes of undertakings involved on an individual basis, which makes for flexibility and allows arrangements to be tailored to individual circumstances. It also allows problems and proposals to be dealt with on their merits, as they arise.
That approach is reflected in the arrangements for applying the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to non-Home Office forces. In Committee, I explained that section 96 of PACE allows its complaints and discipline procedures to be established for those forces along the lines of those for forces maintained under the Police Act 1964. That is fundamentally important.
The new clause makes the somewhat radical proposal to extend the jurisdiction of all constables in non-Home Office forces so that, in effect, they could exercise their powers anywhere in England and Wales to assist the public or local police force. There is a constitutional point. The limited jurisdiction of the forces in question reflects their constitutional position as decided by the House. By and large, non-Home Office forces are not about policing the general public but about protecting private property and specific interests. Their members are recruited and trained for specific purposes, and their accountability, management and control arrangements reflect that.
It would not be acceptable to the public or to the House for members of such forces to exercise full constabulary powers anywhere in England and Wales. Local public accountability would not be there, and training, discipline and management arrangements are different, and rightly so. I must therefore disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I support new clause 3 and will respond to some of the Minister's erroneous arguments. There is a plethora of so-called non-Home Office forces. Some are highly regarded, highly valued, highly skilled and of historic importance. There are also small forces valued by the public, but not in the same league.
Among the big players are the British Transport police, whose training, ethos and traditions are almost indistinguishable from those of Home Office forces. I couple with them the Ministry of Defence and Atomic Energy Authority police and the Royal Parks constabulary. Three of those forces operate within a stone's throw of the House. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to walk with me down Whitehall, we might meet a police officer whose appearance would lead us to think that he was a member of the Metropolitan police but who was a Ministry of Defence

officer. We might cross the road into Horse Guards Parade and meet a member of the Royal Parks constabulary. British Transport police also operate in the vicinity.
I present that scenario because many members of the public cannot understand why such officers would have any hesitation in responding to an incident. Non-Home Office officers would have at least momentary hesitation because they do not have powers as police officers, except in the immediate vicinity of a railway station, the Ministry of Defence, the Atomic Energy Authority or St. James's park—yet all could witness an incident in the street to which they would want to respond, but are not at liberty to do so.
In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that non-Home Office police have no more powers than you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yet—unfairly, I thought—he never suggested that they would be duty bound to respond. That is the spirit in which those proud police officers respond, but they risk being placed in jeopardy. If a complaint were made about their conduct or they suffered injury, the question would arise of their competence and insurance. The matter should be regularised for that if for no other reason.
Three London boroughs and other authorities throughout the country have appointed police forces to patrol their parks—where, unhappily, there is an incidence of crime. Those officers wear traditional uniforms, but they do not have the training of other officers and are not subject to PACE or to the Police Complaints Authority. The Minister said that it is within his competence to ensure that they are subject to the authority. Perhaps he ought to exercise that power, and not leave that to the new clause. However, it beefs up the arguments and emphasises the public need for change and to ensure standards.
5.45 pm
A number of bodies are appointing police officers, but there is no central knowledge of who holds the office of constable, which is irresponsible. It is also unfair to the majority of police in the Home Office forces, Metropolitan police and quality forces to which I referred, that people whose names are not known centrally can be arbitrarily sworn in after receiving poor training. They place in jeopardy not only their own status as police officers and the reputation of their small forces but those of other officers and forces.
It would be prudent to make the proposed modest addition to the Bill to ensure that the Home Secretary has the capacity to ensure standards among those described as police officers and sworn in as constables, and to ensure that there are proper complaints procedures to enhance the status of such constables and protection for the public.
The Minister was talking rubbish when he implied that the new clause sought to extend the general powers of police officers in non-Home Office forces. No one is arguing for co-jurisdiction. The clause makes explicit the fact that, where no other police officer is available, a constable in certain designated non-Home Office forces—we have in mind quality forces such as the British Transport, Atomic Energy Authority and MOD police and the Royal Parks constabulary—would have the full powers and competence of a Metropolitan police officer. What is wrong with that? Such a change is urgently needed.
If a Metropolitan police officer required assistance, he would be able to call on a constable in any of those other


forces for assistance, and it would be given by the respondent as a constable and not as a member of the public.
The argument is best illustrated by the poll tax riots in Trafalgar square, when we saw dramatic television coverage of a scaffolding pole being thrown through the window of a British Transport police vehicle. Clearly, the occupants of that car were inextricably involved in a dangerous incident—but under the existing arrangements described by the Minister, they had no more competence than any of us to respond. That is barmy.
If the Minister is fair and generous, and reads the new clause properly, he will know that we are only talking about ensuring that in an emergency, police officers who have been highly trained at significant public expense would have the capacity to respond in the interests of police colleagues and the public—who demand and expect the attendance and attention of a police officer.

Mr. Michael Shersby: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made an interesting point. I have a particular interest in the Royal Parks constabulary because I was responsible for bringing it into existence through a private Member's Bill. It is a fine force and does a good job in St. James's park and other royal parks.
The Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) is intimately familiar, provides for the appointment of constables in docks such as those at Harwich. Those constables are responsible for the protection of private property. Their recruitment, training and accountability and their duties in the docks and one mile outside the perimeter are different from those of officers in a regular or recognised force.
The issue of accountability has troubled me since I came across this Victorian statute some five years ago. I am not criticising the port of Harwich or the officers who serve there. I merely draw the matter to the Minister's attention in the hope that he will reflect on it to see whether it might be possible to ensure that all uniformed police officers who carry out their duties in the areas to which they are appointed are properly trained and accountable. To all intents and purposes, they should carry the same responsibilities as regular police officers.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has done the House a great service by focusing upon forces with designated status which are highly efficient and much regarded in their areas. I can speak with personal knowledge of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary, which has operated for years not only in Dounreay but in its vicinity. The hon. Gentleman has alighted upon a sensible suggestion as to how such forces could be more usefully integrated in the areas in which they operate and where there is a chance vacuum that their training and experience equips them to fill better than anyone else. So far, the Government have not shown any support for that, but I hope that they will rethink the matter because the common-sense suggestion has great value.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 4

CONDITIONS FOR SETTING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

'For section 28 of the 1964 Act there shall be substituted—

General duties and the setting of objectives for police authorities

28.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his functions under this Act in such manner as is most likely to promote the efficiency of the police.
(2) In exercising his functions under sections 28A to 28D below the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing.
(3) The power by order to determine objectives for the policing of the areas of police authorities under section 28A(1) below shall not be exercisable before the relevant date.
(4) For the purposes of this section the relevant date shall be a date determined by the Secretary of State which shall be—

(a) not before he has laid before Parliament a study by an independent person appointed by him of the effectiveness of levels of performance ("performance targets") established by police authorities in accordance with section 28B below; and
(b) not less than three years after the issuing under that section of a direction to establish performance targets.


(5) Before appointing any independent person for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 43, leave out from '(1)' to 'the' in line 44.
No. 20, in page 9, line 46, leave out from 'targets")' to end of line 47.
No. 12, in page 9, line 47, at end insert—
'(1A) Before issuing any direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.'.
No. 5, in page 10, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.
No. 17, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) No code of practice or revision of a code of practice laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of this section shall have effect unless it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Michael: In an exchange on Second Reading, it became clear that the Home Secretary had not properly understood what he was doing in taking the power to establish national objectives. His mistake in not understanding his own Bill became clearer as our debates in Committee proceeded. I am sure that the Home Secretary meant what he said on Second Reading when he suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that national policing objectives would not override or unduly influence local objectives and local policing plans. That being so, I am sure that he will accept new clause 4 with enthusiasm and alacrity.
As it stands, the Government's proposal for national objectives is a centralising measure. Our alternative will improve the performance of police in partnership with the community that they serve, and it will be for the Government to listen and learn from local experience. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that the


new clause is positive and constructive and should be accepted. It says that, in exercising the powers to set national objectives,
the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing.
The trouble with the Government's approach to this issue is that although they pay, much lip service to locally accountable policing, the tendency of legislation is away from that important principle. I hope that the Home Secretary will put his money where his mouth is and accept the new clause.
The new clause would delay the implementation of national objectives. The Home Secretary would not set national objectives and lay requirements before Parliament until he had received a study by an independent person whom he had appointed. We have no desire to take the Home Secretary out of the picture. If he wished to do so, he could play a constructive part in developing the future role of the police. Only after the report would he set national objectives and performance targets for police authorities to pursue.
We also require a period of three years before the issuing of a direction to establish performance targets. The reason for that is that we should learn from local experience. Performance indicators and targets should be developed on the basis of local experience, requirements and aspirations. For that reason, we also suggest that the Home Secretary should consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers of police.
How can the Minister not accept such a modest and constructive approach to the establishment of national objectives? National objectives should be based on local experience and on the views of the police and public. If that is done, they may work, but national objectives based on a paper exercise carried out in Whitehall, however able are those who undertake it, will not work because it starts from the wrong end.
The White Paper on police reform said that each authority
will be required to secure implementation of the Home Secretary's key objectives and to publish its own local objectives".
I emphasise the word "required".
We have four worries about the national objectives. First, local priorities could be unduly distorted because of failure to tailor policing to local circumstances. That is a real danger, because the Home Secretary will not know the local circumstances; nor will he be able to design general, national objectives to suit the local circumstances of each force.
Secondly, the process will threaten police integrity by distorting recording patterns and skewing priorities. That is a disturbing development which the Home Secretary will bring about.
Thirdly, the objectives will not be owned by the police authorities or the police service and they should be owned, understood and possessed by both.
Fourthly, the police service should not be measured against objectives that are largely outside police control. That fourth point is important. I have experience of the successful implementation of management by objectives in local government. Those objectives were used to improve the quality of service to the local community by the local authority and a variety of departments. We were successful in pursuing that course because we involved those who had to try to meet the objectives—local authority officers at

every level—as well as the public, who had a right to expect a decent standard of service from the way that the objectives developed and were pursued.
We already have difficulties with the key objectives for 1994–95, which have been established at the Home Secretary's behest. As often happens, Parliament is discussing legislation for matters that are already being pursued with some vigour in the machine. There are five key objectives for 1995: detections for violent crimes; detections for burglaries; to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem; high-visibility policing; and emergency calls.
All those objectives are important. Four of them will be measured by numbers and percentages, but the third key objective—to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem—is different. The Home Office has said that no high-level indicator is currently available, although there is work on developing an indicator for 1995–96.
On the key issue of crime prevention—local partnerships and the police are about crime prevention as well as investigating crimes that have taken place—there is difficulty in finding key indicators. I have had experience of that as well, although perhaps it was not intentional. A project in which I was involved included probation and social services and had the police and voluntary organisations on the management committee which was chaired by the local vicar. We involved education, and so on.
The chief constable referred to the project in his annual report in three successive years, and it was also mentioned by the chief probation officer, because it was reducing the incidence of crime among young people in the community.
6 pm
Such recognition might have been expected to lead to the continuation of the project, but we received a telephone call from the probation service saying that the two people who were primarily involved would have to be withdrawn. The reason? "We receive our money from the Home Office chiefly for the supervision of young offenders, and offenders in general. Because not enough young offenders are going to court, we cannot justify continuing to devote time to the project."
If certain factors are measured, that will influence the way in which a service is provided. Unless the indicators are right—unless the right factors are being measured—priorities will be distorted. The problem is that we cannot easily measure what we have prevented. Crime prevention is crucial; yet the development and use of performance indicators to affect the performance of the police is likely to remove them from some of the crucial elements that should be a priority for them.
The Bill's suggestion of a power for the Home Secretary to give and enforce directions is worrying, because it appears to run counter to a focus on specific and detailed local issues and factors that affect crime. It runs counter to the theme of the White Paper on police reform, whose aim was supposedly to empower chief constables to deliver a service that responded better to local needs and strengthened police authorities.
It seems that the Government's theme is to devolve responsibility to chief constables, but to keep carefully in the hands of the Home Secretary and civil servants a great deal of the influence on what must be chief constables' priorities. We consider that a mistake.
As drafted, the Bill involves the potential entry of the Home Secretary into local operational issues. We touched on that point in an earlier debate. The operational independence of the chief constable should not be interfered with, but the way in which national objectives are being set—not in the way that we suggest, but in the way that the Home Secretary suggests—would affect that independence.
The Bill will not serve to clarify the respective roles of chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary in improving accountability for the performance of the police, which was supposed to be one of the White Paper's objectives. It will enable the Home Secretary to override the police authorities' views on resources: he will be deciding the national objectives. It is likely to result in increased staffing demands on the Home Office for planning, directing, monitoring and action at local level and in specific detail. It is important for the setting of objectives, and the measuring of those objectives at local level, to be done in a way that does not increase the amount of bureaucracy in a local police force, rather than helping it to carry out its duties.
The powers in the Bill are likely to interfere and be inconsistent with the Home Secretary's responsibility for national policing efficiency, rather than for becoming involved in the detail of priorities that should be set by a chief constable and the police. They run contrary to the arrangements for performance targets that local authorities set themselves under the Local Government Act 1992.
The new clause and amendments would do three things. They represent a measured approach to the setting of national objectives, which would best aid the Government's objectives if they really want to improve policing standards. They would give police authorities an opportunity to demonstrate the responsible exercise of their functions in the interests of a locality, without depriving the centre of a locus: in other words, local police forces would be able to set objectives that recognised the nature of crime in their communities, the aspirations of the public and the experience of the police, and the centre could then learn what happens at local level. Finally, the new clause and amendments would continue to promote partnership in the best traditions of the tripartite system.
The Home Secretary should accept our new clause with enthusiasm if he meant what he said on Second Reading about not wishing to interfere with the priorities of the local police, in conjunction with local authorities that represent local people and local interests. That is where the important objectives are set, so that patterns of policing for the future can be decided.

Mr. Maclennan: I am sorry to have to disagree with the new clause. I do so not because I believe that some of its objectives are not laudable: it recognises the need to ensure that police objectives are set locally, with local considerations and priorities in mind. Nor do I fail to recognise that the new clause would, to some extent, water down the power of the Secretary of State to set the general, national objectives contained in clause 14.
I feel, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) risks supping with the devil, and using too short a spoon. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the present Home Secretary—or, indeed, any foreseeable Home Secretary in the current Government—would appoint an independent person, under the terms of the new clause, to conduct a study of

the effectiveness of levels of performance
which might conceivably be acceptable to police authorities or to the police. One wonders whether the Home Secretary might have in mind for the task someone comparable to Sir Patrick Sheehy, who may be deemed the originator of much disquiet in the bosoms of the police, and who may have prevented the Home Secretary—equanimous gentleman though he is—from sleeping every now and again.
I do not believe that that task is either appropriate or capable of being performed to anyone's satisfaction. The whole concept of imposing performance targets externally on a service such as the police strikes me as misconceived. Performance targets are fairly contentious even in the areas of commerce and industry where they have been deployed, and I feel that in the police service—where so much depends on the inhibition of unlawful or disorderly behaviour, and where performance is almost impossible to measure—the exercise would be in vain.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to
consult persons representative of police authorities
before appointing the Sir Patrick Sheehy equivalent. I am rather dubious about whether anyone would regard consultation as offering much of a safeguard. I recall that, at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth took exception to the use of the word "consultation", suggesting that "agreement" with police authority representatives and chief officers might be more appropriate when a Conservative Home Secretary was involved.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a comment that I made about agreement between chief constables and police authorities on local objectives and plans in their areas. I am rather surprised by what he has said. Is he suggesting that he would prefer the Home Secretary to introduce national objectives without benefiting from local experience? That is what will happen unless the new clause becomes part of the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the proper way in which to deal with the issue of national objectives is to strike it out of the Bill. I do not think that we should countenance the suggestion that national objectives issued by any Home Secretary are tolerable. I dare say that parliamentary procedures may limit the way in which the matter can be discussed, but it seems to me that—inadvertently, perhaps—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is giving some support to the idea that national objectives might reasonably he introduced at some time if certain conditions were met.

Mr. Michael: In Committee, we said that we preferred to deal with objectives entirely as a local issue. However, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly implies, we cannot have exactly the same debate on the Floor of the House as we had in Committee. We have therefore responded to Ministers' rejection of our case by coming up with a positive constructive solution. Has the hon. Gentleman tried to delete national objectives from the Bill? If so, I must have overlooked his amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: At this stage in the debate, the exercise would be in vain. But by suggesting that national objectives might be made more tolerable, the hon. Gentleman is compromising his position and that of the


Labour party. If the Bill becomes the law of the land, a future Labour Home Secretary may avail himself of the power to establish national objectives. I should take equally strong exception to a Labour Home Secretary seeking to use such a power as to its use by a Conservative Home Secretary.
However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when a matter has been exhaustively debated in Committee, as this has been, it is probable, indeed almost certain, that the subject will not be reopened on Report. Therefore, to go through the charade—under provocation, I am using slightly stronger language—of implying that there is some merit in seeking, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to qualify the introduction of national objectives is dangerous; it is playing with fire. It is an ingenious debating device, but unfortunately it gives entirely the wrong signals to the police, the police authorities and the general public.
National objectives have no part in British policing. They should be struck out at the earliest opportunity, and we should make it clear now that it would be our intention to do so at the next legislative opportunity.

Mr. Howard: I shall begin by explaining what the new clause would actually achieve. It would have three main effects. First, it would require the Home Secretary to have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing. Secondly, it would require the Home Secretary to appoint an independent person to consider the effectiveness of performance targets established by police authorities. Thirdly, it would prevent the Home Secretary from setting key objectives before that independent report had been laid before Parliament, and also prevent him from doing so before three years had elapsed since police authorities had been directed to set performance targets.
That seems a curious mixture of ideas, and it would be best if I dealt with them one by one. First, the Home Secretary is already required to promote the efficiency of the police. As to promoting locally accountable policing, that is the central purpose of the Bill. That is why we are setting up strong independent police authorities with clear responsibilities for providing efficient and effective local policing. That is why we are requiring police authorities to consult their communities about policing objectives and priorities in their areas. That is why we are requiring police authorities to publish annual policing plans and annual reports setting out the outcomes of those plans. So the first declared objective of the new clause is already achieved by the Bill.
The new clause would also prevent the Home Secretary from determining key objectives for policing before he had laid before Parliament an independent study of the effectiveness of local performance targets. The connection between the two elements is not at all clear. The Home Secretary's power to set key objectives is designed to enable him to focus police attention on the major areas of concern expressed by the public. The objectives set for the current year involve increasing the number of detections of violent crimes and of burglary, targeting and preventing local crimes, in partnership with the public, providing high-visibility policing and responding promptly to emergency calls. We do not require an independent study to recognise that those are common concerns of people throughout the nation.
6.15 pm
In fact, there is already an independent person, appointed on my recommendation, whose task it is to report annually on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces and their performance. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that that person is not Sir Patrick Sheehy, but Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. He is entirely independent—I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not want any of his remarks to be taken as implying otherwise—and has under his control a number of inspectors responsible for inspecting police forces.
Inspectors of constabulary are independent of the police service, and are accountable to the Home Secretary for carrying out their responsibility. Part of their job will be to consider the effectiveness of the performance targets established by police authorities under the Bill, and to report accordingly. Inspection reports are published, as is the annual report of the chief inspector to the Home Secretary. I therefore see no purpose whatever in establishing yet another independent person to cover the same ground as the existing independent inspectorate.
The fact is that the Labour amendments on national objectives are a red herring. The simple truth is that Labour Members do not want national objectives at all. Judging by the other amendments that they have tabled, Labour Members do not want local police authorities to set out local policing plans with local objectives, either.
The Labour party simply does not understand the first thing about measuring and improving the performance of public services. They always take the side of the producer, never the side of the consumer or of the public. In that respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is just as prehistoric as his Front-Bench colleagues. He is interested only in rehearsing tired arguments about giving new duties to local authorities. That would be the effect of the new clause on which he chose to speak, and that speaks volumes for his priorities. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that we need a body separate from the police—in this case, the police authority—to set objectives and to measure performance.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield should listen to the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I know that he will find this hard to take, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not only a closet moderniser, but more of a moderniser than the hon. Member for Sedgefield. When asked how to reform public services the hon. Member for Oldham, West explained:
If you are going to make it work seriously you have to set targets independently.
I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman—in fact, I do not often agree with him. But I entirely agree with him on that, and that is precisely the point that we are making in the Bill. Regrettably, that is entirely lost on the hon. Member for Sedgefield. He talks about modernising public services, but votes against the very measures that will make that happen.
In his recent Police Foundation lecture, the hon. Member for Sedgefield called for a
proper national strategy and framework
to deal with crime, yet today he rejects that. As usual, he is all sound bite and no substance.
The hon. Gentleman talks as though he has just bought his first modern textbook on management, but has read only the index. Some of the words are there—


"performance", "efficiency", even "accountability" but he does not understand what they mean. The hon. Gentleman would not reform public services to make them better. He would simply say to those responsible for delivering services, "Set your own targets, measure your own performance, and don't bother to publish the results." Indeed, that was the philosophy that lay behind the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). It is entirely inconsistent with a proper approach to accountability.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) does not want targets of any kind. That is the approach taken by the modern purposive Liberal Democratic party.
To sum up, the new clause—

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary does me a disservice in misrepresenting what I said. I am much in favour of local police authorities having targets and local policing plans, but I object to the Home Secretary's taking that authority into his hands, and to his dictating what the national targets should be. I do not believe that he is sensitive to local needs.

Mr. Howard: Of course, it is always possible that the words which the hon. Gentleman used in his speech earlier did not adequately convey the meaning which he intended to convey. However, if he reads those words in Hansard, he will find that the representation which I made of them a few moments ago is entirely justified and accurate.
To sum up, the new clause is misguided and unnecessary. It is misguided because it suggests that the Home Secretary cannot set key objectives to reflect major concerns of the people of the country without first having some sort of investigation into the way in which police authorities have set local targets. It is unnecessary because it seeks to duplicate the independent review and assessment function that is already provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 20 would detach performance targets, which police authorities may be required to set, from the key objectives, but there is an inescapable connection between the Home Secretary's key objectives and the police authorities' performance targets. Otherwise, there would be no common point of reference, no way in which people could establish how their police force had performed against the objectives and no possibility of making any comparisons. Clearly, the performance targets to be set by the police authorities should relate to the key objectives. Equally, it is right that the Home Secretary's powers and responsibilities in that area should clearly link the two issues.
Amendment No. 12 arises from a misunderstanding about the Home Secretary's powers in relation to performance targets. The Home Secretary has no power at all under the Bill to set performance targets. The power to set the targets quite deliberately rests with the police authority. Since the Home Secretary has no power to set targets, but merely to direct the police authorities to do so, it follows that he does not need to consult anyone before he decides to issue a direction. It is a matter for him and him alone to decide how, when or if to instruct police authorities to set performance targets, but when he has instructed them to do so, the targets will be determined locally with local consultation. The hon. Member for

Cardiff, South and Penarth did not speak to amendment No. 17, which is included in the group, so there is no need for me to deal with it.
The new clause and the amendments epitomise the muddle which has characterised the approach of the Labour party to the Bill. They are misconceived, misguided and unnecessary. They illustrate how remote the Labour party is from any true appreciation of how accountability of public involvement in policing can best be achieved, and I urge the House to reject them.

Mr. Michael: That was a nice try by the Home Secretary to sound as if he was being reasonable in rejecting the new clause. He is not. However, I shall first refer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). His speech was disappointing. He sometimes disappoints and, sometimes, one finds him supporting rational argument on such issues. He seemed to be suggesting an agenda for misrepresentation on a fresh issue of focus in the near future, which rather misrepresents the nature of the debate.
The Home Secretary paid my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) the compliment of concentrating on my hon. Friend's speech in an earlier debate, during which the Home Secretary chose not take part, before leading his troops into the Lobby to vote against local partnerships for crime prevention. The Home Secretary missed his chance on that occasion. That is his mistake and he cannot recover with a sound bite in this debate.
If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be a victory for common sense over dogma—such as the victory that we have heard has taken place this evening in another place. The Home Secretary has been given another bloody nose because of his pursuit of dogmatic attitudes towards the problems of crime and crime prevention, rather than listening and learning from those who have been involved in and have been trying to tackle those issues over the years.
I am glad that the Home Secretary thinks that he understands the new clause, but he has not explained to us why he will vote against having regard to the desirability of promoting local, accountable policing. That is what the new clause requires.

Mr. Howard: That is what the whole Bill is about.

Mr. Michael: It is not what the whole Bill is about. The whole Bill, I tell the Home Secretary, is about centralising power in his hands. He has had that exchange before. He will not get away with it. People will—belatedly, perhaps—recognise how centralising and damaging and constitutionally bad the Bill is. He has an opportunity today to accept the new clause, which would move us a little in the right direction.
The Home Secretary has talked about a study by an independent person. Why is he so against learning from experience? Why is he so against learning from what happens when local police authorities and chief constables set objectives and seek to meet them? Why will not he learn from the combined experience of all local police authorities and forces in every part of the United Kingdom? He says that he already has an independent person to look at such issues, so why not accept the new clause?
Labour Members understand the setting of priorities and the use of objectives. I told the Home Secretary that I have had positive experience of that myself. It should be


done locally, on the basis of partnership, with the experience of the police and on the aspirations of the public. The police authorities will set targets, but those targets will be distorted by the imposition of national objectives, which the Government seek to set, unless the Home Secretary accepts the new clause, as he should if he is really interested in local, effective and accountable policing.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 303.

Division No. 283]
6.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dowd, Jim


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Austin-Walker, John
Enright, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Etherington, Bill


Barnes, Harry
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Berry, Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gordon, Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Church, Judith
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hodge, Margaret


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Janner, Greville


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S.





Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Purchase, Ken


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Liddell, Helen
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAllion, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAvoy, Thomas
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McCartney, Ian
Rogers, Allan


Macdonald, Calum
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Rooney, Terry


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mandelson, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Rhodri
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Olner, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Wright, Dr Tony


Pope, Greg
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. John Cummings and


Prescott, John
Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Aitken, Jonathan
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ancram, Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boswell, Tim


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Bates, Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Batiste, Spencer
Budgen, Nicholas






Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, Sir James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knox, Sir David


Dunn, Bob
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Elletson, Harold
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Lynne, Ms Liz


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclennan, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorst, Sir John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grylls, Sir Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)





Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steve
Stephen, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stern, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan


Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Irvine
Sykes, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pickles, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thomason, Roy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rendel, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Richards, Rod
Tredinnick, David


Riddick, Graham
Trend, Michael


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Trimble, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sackville, Tom
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1994
Antarctic Act 1994
State Hospitals (Scotland) Act 1994
Chiropractors Act 1994
Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994
Local Government (Wales) Act 1994
Sunday Trading Act 1994
Coal Industry Act 1994
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994
Value Added Tax Act 1994
Commons Registration (East Sussex) Act 1994
Dunham Bridge (Amendment) Act 1994
London Underground (Green Park) Act 1994

Orders of the Day — Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered

New clause 6

SCHEMES FOR COMPULSORY OR VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE ON STRUCTURAL GROUNDS: SCOTLAND

'After section 31 of the 1967 Act there shall be inserted—

Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance

31A. No scheme for the introduction of compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds shall be introduced in any police force without prior consultation with the staff associations representing the interests of those officers affected.".'. — [Sir Anthony Durant.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Anthony Durant: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds: England and Wales—
'After section 58 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Schemes for compulsory or voluntary severance

59. No scheme for the introduction of compulsory or voluntary severance on structural grounds shall be introduced in any police area without prior consultation with the staff associations representing the interests of these officers affected.".'.

New clause 9—Amendment of Police Negotiating Board Act 1980—
'Section 1(1) of the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980 shall be amended by inserting after the words "pay and allowances," the words "structural severance terms and criteria,".'.

Amendment No. 21, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
'(3A) A chief constable shall, after consulting his police authority, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to have responsibility for complaints and for discipline within the force'.

Amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
'(5A) A chief constable may, after consulting his police authority and the Secretary of State, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to deputise for him in the exercise of any of the powers and duties of the chief constable.'.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
'(c) for the words "ranks of superintendent," there shall be substituted the words "the rank of superintendent (and an officer with the rank and salary of superintendent may, subject to the approval of the police authority and the Secretary of State, be designated as a chief superintendent by the chief constable or chief officer of police where special circumstances of command or organisation make such designation desirable), the ranks of chief inspector,".'.

Amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 38, after first 'the', insert
'words "ranks of" the words "chief superintendent," shall be inserted, and after the'.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 17, page 13, line 22, at end add—
'(6) In subsection (6), after the word "section", there shall be inserted the words "(except regulations falling within the provisions of subsection (7) below)".'.

Amendment No. 19, in page 13, line 22, at end add—
'(7) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—

(7) No regulations shall be made under this section which contain references to performance related pay for assistant chief constables or chief constables unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) Draft regulations laid under subsection (7) shall relate only to one police authority.
(9) Before laying any regulations before Parliament under subsection (7) the Secretary of State shall consult the police authority concerned and the chief officer of the police force concerned and lay copies of their representations before Parliament.".'.

Amendment No. 66, in clause 44, page 22, line 26, leave out from 'ranks)' to 'subsection' in line 34.

Sir Anthony Durant: This discussion is principally about voluntary and compulsory severance from the police service. I speak as parliamentary adviser to the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales.
On 28 October 1993, the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced that severance schemes were to be introduced into the police service. Those schemes will involve both voluntary and compulsory severance. He gave an assurance that such schemes would be used only as a last resort and only with his authority. However, as more and more forces reorganise to cut their management layers to the absolute minimum, there is every likelihood that such schemes will need to be used. The ad hoc voluntary scheme currently available in the Metropolitan police is a clear example.
There is currently no national mechanism for the determination of appropriate severance arrangements for police officers, or any coherent national policy on the criteria to be adopted by forces. Police officers are "officers of the Crown". Their peculiar legal status means that they are not covered by normal employment legislation that applies to most people. Instead, their conditions of service are set out in Acts of Parliament and regulations made thereunder.
Severance is an entirely new concept that will be introduced into the police service for the first time and there is currently no legal framework governing the negotiation and determination of severance schemes. That could leave the way open for individual police forces to design their own packages, with only the Secretary of State having to approve them. That is likely to result in unfairness to police officers, and long and costly legal arguments over such schemes. A clear example of the diversity that is likely to occur can be found by comparing the current Metropolitan police scheme with that offered by the British Transport police.
A 53-year-old superintendent, with 30 years' service, in the Metropolitan police scheme would receive £10,119. A similar officer in the British Transport police scheme would receive £40,479. The scheme proposed in the much-lamented Sheehy report, which hon. Members keep coming back to, would have given the officer £101,197.
Currently, both the Metropolitan police and the British Transport police schemes are voluntary. Officers can elect to apply for them as they individually choose. The Secretary of State intends, however, to include compulsory severance in his schemes, which adds a new dimension. Police officers have almost common conditions of service throughout the United Kingdom and they are able to negotiate matters affecting their pay and conditions of service through the police negotiating board.
Two clear issues are at stake. First, local negotiations should take place in any force that is contemplating the


introduction of severance, whether voluntary or compulsory. Those negotiations should involve staff representatives of those officers likely to be affected. Secondly, national negotiations should agree the criteria and terms of any severance schemes so that all are aware exactly what is involved when making an application to the Secretary of State for such schemes.
My amendments to the Police Act 1964 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 are intended to cover the point about local negotiation and will ensure that staff representatives are consulted before any application is made for a severance scheme. They are worded in exactly the same way, but two amendments are necessary because of the differing legislation governing policing in different parts of the country.
My other amendment seeks to clarify the Police Negotiating Board Act 1980. At present, the Police Pensions Act 1976 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the times at which and the circumstances in which members of police forces are, or may be, required to retire other than on grounds of misconduct. The Act requires that such decisions should follow consultation with the police negotiating board.
The Police Negotiating Board Act 1980, however, clearly sets out in its first section those matters covered by the Act and severance is not included. That causes a lack of clarity and my amendment intends to rectify matters by clearly including structural severance terms and criteria in matters falling within the scope of that Act.
I should like to discuss amendment No. 13, which deals with the question of the rank of chief superintendent. Through the Bill, the Government have sought to reduce the number of ranks in the British police service. The service generally has nine ranks, with some exceptions in the Metropolitan and City of London forces. The Government argue that reducing the number of ranks will streamline the management of the service—simplify the structure—improve communication and enable officers of high ability to move quickly though the ranks. The Sheehy report suggested doing away with two ranks, but the Home Secretary has decided to reinstate chief inspectors into the service.
6.45 pm
I shall deal with each point in turn: first, streamlining the management of the police service. The most effective way to streamline management, while maintaining quality and effectiveness, is to consider carefully all management posts, keeping only those that are necessary and ensuring that the grade of the post is appropriate to the task. There is no need to have a full hierarchical structure under each post. Only those posts necessary to do the job at the right grade should be in place.
That process is already under way in the police service, with the full and active co-operation of police officers of all ranks. Forces are reorganising using the basic command unit model. As part of the process, the number of posts and the rank that officers should have are critically examined. Police forces no longer have a full hierarchical structure under every rank-they consider carefully what is required and put in place the right number of officers at the right rank.
The large reductions in the number of chief superintendents and superintendents in post in England and

Wales is evidence of what has already been achieved. By December 1990, the total number of chief superintendents plus superintendents in post was 2,055. By May of this year, the number had been reduced to 1,612—a reduction of 443, or 21.5 per cent.
When considering simplifying the structure, it should be borne in mind that the current structure has developed over a long period. That is well understood, both inside and outside the police service. It provides a clear distinction of ranks, a good operational command structure and the ability to reward at clear levels. Any reductions in existing command levels will result in unnecessary operational management difficulties and the likelihood of the creation of artificial grades to fill in the gaps. In the professional view of the police service, through associations of chief police officers and superintendents associations, the number of ranks available at present is right.
The improving communication argument presupposes that a problem exists with current lines of communication. Although I accept that communications can always be improved, there is a point beyond which too few levels can cause a breakdown rather than an improvement in communications. We should remember that removing bridges can leave gaps. That was clearly shown in the ill-fated reorganisation of the London ambulance service, when an overly drastic reduction in management grades caused a lack of communication of such proportions that the subsequent failure of the ambulance command and control system resulted in a breakdown.
Enabling officers of high ability to move quickly through the ranks is already something that has been notably achieved by the police service over the years. There is great scope for officers with such ability to progress quickly. The police graduate entry scheme and the special course ensure that officers of high potential are recognised and that their careers are carefully planned. Current conditions of service allow for rank skipping and fast progression—removal of some ranks would do nothing to improve the position. One has to consider only the top echelons of the police service today to recognise that those officers with ability are already able to progress effectively to the top positions.
Ranks exist primarily for operational purposes. We currently have only nine ranks from constable to chief constable, far fewer than any of the armed services and far fewer than the number of grades in the civil service. The Government's proposals will leave only seven ranks operationally to deploy and command a police service in the United Kingdom that approaches 150,000 officers in total—bigger than any of the armed services on their own.
Recent experience of similar measures taken in New Zealand, where a similar police service exists, showed that removal of ranks resulted in the creation of "grades within grades" to replace the removed ranks—an outcome that has proved far less beneficial in terms of operational and career structure. That police service has recently reduced the number of grades to only two. It has gone back to what was there before, but it has not gone back to the post of chief superintendent.
When large-scale public order events have to be commanded, or major criminal investigations have to be carried out, the chief superintendent has a clearly defined role to command and control such operations. The 'blanket' abolition of chief superintendents is likely seriously to reduce that operational command flexibility, with no consequent benefit to the organisation. Retaining


chief superintendents will assist in devolving responsibility from chief officer level while at the same time providing management and command resilience in supporting assistant chief constables and chief superintendents, particularly in their absence.
The advent of single-line budgets and national criteria for posts, coupled with police authority involvement and the overview of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, will result in posts being available only where there is a clear need for them, thus giving better value for money and commonality of structure throughout the force.
The Government are committed to providing the best quality of policing to the public, with the right balance between national standards and local delivery to meet local needs. By supporting amendment No. 13, the House will ensure that forces have the flexibility to structure themselves to meet those commitments. The retention of the rank of chief superintendent will enhance that flexibility; the loss of it will reduce that flexibility. I urge the Government to look at this matter yet again.

Mr. Michael: Despite the ominous sound of the title of new clause 6, I shall speak to a number of simpler issues, some of which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant).
It is fair to say that, again, I am proposing simple, common-sense amendments. I accept that my saying so is likely to result in a rebuff from the Minister and probably a savaging from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The Opposition have attempted to table reasonable and acceptable proposals. We acknowledge that our debates in Committee showed that the Government have made up their mind on certain issues. Our amendments seek merely to make reasonable changes to the Bill.
In recent years, I have followed with interest what has happened to ranks of the police force. In south Wales, the loss of a number of occupiers of the rank of chief superintendent has slimmed the upper structure, and the passing of responsibility to the local superintendent has resulted in a good deal of local targeting of activity. Our experience has been mirrored in a number of police forces, and I do not understand why the Home Secretary has found it necessary to delete ranks rather than relying on common sense and the natural constraints on chief constables and police authorities to slim ranks and flatten the structures of responsibility. When something is already being achieved, why give it a push in statute, especially when that push takes things slightly too far?
I should like to refer specifically to the ranks of deputy chief constable and chief superintendent. Our amendment seeks not to reinstitute the rank of deputy chief constable but to deal with the consequences of its removal, which the Government have not yet faced up to. It seeks to allow for the possibility that the Home Secretary will, in certain circumstances, be persuaded that the rank of chief superintendent is necessary. It leaves the final decision to the Home Secretary. He and the police authority must be persuaded that a chief constable is right to want a post of chief constable. The Home Secretary would give up very little by accepting the amendment.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland might accuse me of selling the pass, so I should I make it clear that we are not doing so. We say simply that it is sensible

to have provision in legislation, rather than legislation absolutely ruling out the possibility of someone being designated as a chief superintendent.
The Bill does not deal with a number of elements of the rank of chief constable. Amendment No. 21 says:
A chief constable shall, after consulting his police authority, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to have responsibility for complaints and for discipline within the force'".
Such matters are normally dealt with by a deputy chief constable, but without someone of that rank, who will fulfil those functions? It is clear that the chief constable, who has ultimate responsibility for appeals within his force, should not do so. This amendment would simply deal with the problem by providing a sensible way of ensuring justice for complaints and disciplinary matters.
Amendment No. 23 provides:
A chief constable may, after consulting his police authority and the Secretary of State, designate a person holding the rank of assistant chief constable to deputise for him in the exercise of any of the powers and duties of the chief constable.
Many chief constables and other senior members of the police force have said that deputising is occasionally necessary, and a large force must have a second person to exercise functions to prevent the chief constable from being overwhelmed by the burdens of his important and onerous office.
The amendment does not reintroduce a deputy but proposes a mechanism under which deputising can take place. The requirement that the Home Secretary should agree to it surely should commend the amendment even to Ministers who wish to set their faces against allowing such delegation under the Bill.
The Association of Chief Police Officers says that an ACC appointed to the office of deputy chief constable will have had experience in a chief-headquarters rank, which will be all the more important following police reform because there will be fewer holders of the rank of chief superintendent. Indeed, there will not be any if the Bill is passed as it stands, and that flattening of the rank structure surely requires that functions be identified.
I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers that the case for abolishing this important post of more than 30 years' standing has not been made, which is why it does not wish to dispense with it. I suggest, more modestly, that we should simply deal in a sensible and reasonable way with the functions carried out by the deputy.
I have suggested—it requires no change to negotiating patterns or national agreements—that an officer with the rank and salary of superintendent might be designated as a chief superintendent by the chief constable or chief officer of police where special circumstances of command or organisation require it. A chief constable would have to say to the police authority, which would then have to say to the Home Secretary, "Because of the size of our force," or, "Because our town must be policed in a certain way, we believe that it would be best to have a senior officer designated as chief superintendent. He might have a superintendent working with him, but for reasons of command and organisation we would prefer that designation." Such a request would be perfectly reasonable, and I commend the amendment to the Minister.
We suggest that the introduction of performance-related pay for assistant chief constables or chief constables should not be made until draft regulations have been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House. That would


deal with the problem of accountability. Performance-related pay should be targeted and should relate to only one police authority. The Home Secretary should first consult the authority and chief officer concerned and lay copies of their representations before Parliament.
The jury is still out on performance-related pay. The Minister has been as trappist as he can be in his responses to requests for evidence about the effectiveness of performance-related pay. In a written answer on 27 June, requesting a list of the possible incentives that he is considering as rewards, he referred me to a previous reply in which he had not answered the question. On 27 June, I asked him to list the police functions that he intends to be subject to measurement to provide a basis for performance-related pay for chief constables. He replied:
This matter is under discussion with the relevant interests." —[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol.245, c. 423.]
He cannot have assured himself that the system will work, because he does not have a system that he can tell the House about.
In answer to a request for
the studies and research findings on which he based his decision to introduce a system of performance-related pay for senior police officers",
he said:
My right hon. and learned Friend"—
he is passing the buck already—
took account of the argument in support of relating pay to overall performance contained in the report of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards.
That was the Sheehy report, and we know what happened to that. That is not an effective basis on which to decide the future rewards of the police. The Minister continued:
But the most influential factor in the Government's decision to introduce-performance related pay for all ranks in the police service was the benefit it will bring to the police service itself.
The Government were asked for evidence and their response was a statement of dogma. They have produced no evidence.
The Minister then said:
Distinguishing especially good performance from the average performance provides an incentive to people to improve the effectiveness of their contribution, bringing added benefit to both the organisation and the individual, and is a perfectly reasonable thing to do."—[Official Report, 28 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 458.]
The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to show that PRP would benefit the performance of the police or be to the benefit of the public.
7 pm
I can produce evidence from a report of the Institute of Manpower Studies. It is one of many reports from which I could quote. It is entitled "Pay and Performance: The Employer Experience" and it was produced in June 1992. Having referred to previous research, it states:
few, if any, studies have demonstrated a causal link between individual performance related pay and increases in productivity.
That is the finding for industry and commerce as a whole;
it is not confined to the police. Even in terms of the production of widgets, there is little evidence of the benefit of IPRP.
The report then questions whether performance-related pay delivers. It found that rarely was there an effective monitoring and evaluation process built into an IPRP scheme. The report states:
This was because most employers did not have clearly articulated objectives for introducing such schemes against which

they could measure subsequent success or failure. Furthermore, little thought appeared to be given to the indicators that could be used to measure the effectiveness of the scheme and the type of information that should be collected.
There is a direct parallel between that management experience and the fact that the Minister could not answer my question about what he intended to measure to determine the nature of PRP within the police force.
The institute's report refers also to costs and benefits. It suggests that many additional costs are incurred in adopting PRP
(such as, preparation of supporting documentation, training, communication strategy etc) but not the level of these costs. When pushed, 'guesstimates' in the region of one to two per cent…were typical.
The institute concluded that the lack of monitoring and evaluation and the lack of evidence of the benefits of PRP meant that such schemes should be examined extremely carefully.
When it came to Government policy, the institute reported:
Performance related pay has become an important building block in overall Government policy and is perceived"—
I stress "perceived"—
to be a means of raising public sector efficiency through linking pay to performance levels.
Our research would cast doubt on this argument. There is little support, in practice, for the claims that PRP motivates, changes organisational culture for the better or serves to retain high performers. In short, many of the objectives of introducing PRP do not appear to have been realised.
As I have said, I have produced one piece of evidence in response to the Government's failure to produce any figures. The Minister should accept the amendment, which would force him at least to make the preparation that is recommended by the institute. He should produce arguments and evidence before he brings forward an untried system for an important public sector service—the police.

Mr. Maclennan: I nearly always agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). That being so, I feel some pain when I disagree with him. It is plain from the hon. Gentleman's response to an earlier debate that that feeling is reciprocated; the same can be said of his opening remarks in this debate. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman deployed his arguments so forcefully and effectively, because there is now no need for me to speak at great length in support of the amendments that he has tabled.
Exceptionally, I have appended my name to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), which is a response to the Government's proposal to abolish the rank of chief superintendent. If the Government did that, they would be making a serious error of judgment based on a hangover from an earlier phase of consideration of the rank structure. That consideration should have been swept aside when it was evidently not necessary to achieve the objective of streamlining or thinning the top ranks of police forces. That process was effectively already under way in another guise, and there was a danger that the Government would seriously interfere with the flexibility of police forces throughout the country and their ability to deploy their manpower in the most effective way that chief constables, in particular, had identified.
The position of chief superintendent is a special one. It is not required in every police force but it is useful in larger city forces. There is a 24-hour responsibility or duty to give


effect operationally to the policing objectives or duties that have been set by chief constables. It is recognised that that position or role, where it has been established and exercised, is an important one.
The Government appear to be trying to foist upon the 43 police forces a pattern that is not apt in each police force area. I do not take a dogmatic view. I am not arguing that an exactly similar structure is required throughout the country. I do not say dogmatically that the rank of chief superintendent should be used in all 43 forces. I merely say that the usefulness or otherwise of the rank should not have been determined in the way that the Government deemed appropriate.
The nine police ranks are rather few when a comparison is made with numbers of ranks in the armed services. Evidence has been drawn most effectively from the New Zealand experience to suggest that a contraction of the numbers of ranks leads to serious problems of inflexibility, resulting in a need to create ranks within ranks. That is to be avoided.
The arguments that have been deployed by the Association of Chief Superintendents are manifold, careful and serious, and they deserve consideration. I shall not repeat them all, because I deployed some of them at an earlier stage in our consideration of the Bill. I know that they have been put directly to Ministers and I think that Ministers should respond to them. They have been deployed without rancour. They have been advanced fairly and considerately. Recognition would not amount to a significant backdown by the Government. No one would claim it to be a backdown. That view would not be taken if the Minister conducted a review, recognised the force of the argument and said to the chief superintendents, and the chief constables for that matter, "Yes, you are talking sense."
I hope that the Minister will not argue that when given the choice between chief inspectors or chief superintendents, the Association of Chief Police Officers said, "Well, if we had to choose, we would call for the retention of the rank of chief inspector." It would be unfortunate if he adopted that argument, because the association was given an unacceptable choice. The reality is that ACPO wanted both ranks, and the Minister knows that. I hope that he will not regard a change of mind as a loss of face.
Ministers gain a reputation for strength when they listen to good arguments and respond positively to them. That is what the debate is all about. If the Minister is able to accept that, he will have made the entire exercise worth while.
The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about performance-related pay were sound, and were adduced in Committee. The Government have produced no evidence in support of the importation of their proposals into policing. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments. I simply use this opportunity to say that my party and I entirely endorse the comments made from the Opposition Front Bench on that issue and will support whatever steps the Labour party may take to press the matter.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I want first to consider the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). As he has explained, the effect of the new clauses would be to require consultation at both national and local level on any severance provisions that might be introduced for the police service and to make such provisions subject to arbitration.
I have some sympathy with the thinking behind the new clauses. Although I cannot accept them as they stand, I should like to explain the way in which the Government propose to involve the police service before making regulations relating to severance schemes for police officers.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced last October the Government's decisions on the recommendations made by the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, he said that we intended to make provision for voluntary and compulsory severance schemes for police officers. He made it clear that the use of those provisions by individual forces would, none the less, require the approval of the Secretary of State, which would be given for a limited period only.
The regulations providing for severance schemes will be made under legislation that does not attract the statutory requirements for consultation with the Police Negotiating Board that apply to regulations governing other aspects of police pay and conditions of service. However, the Government do not intend to lay any such regulations before Parliament without giving the police staff associations and police authority representatives the opportunity to comment on them in draft. We therefore propose to operate, on a non-statutory basis, precisely the same consultation arrangements that are required by statute to be applied in respect of regulations dealing with police pensions.
Those arrangements, which were in place before the PNB was established in 1980, have worked well in respect of police pensions regulations. They seem to provide the correct balance between consulting the police service interests about pensions arrangements and having regard to the important wider public sector implications. What we propose will provide a structured means of consulting police service interests about draft regulations dealing with severance on precisely the same basis as applies to pension arrangements, with Parliament's having the final say about the form of regulations.
In view of that assurance, I do not think that there is any need to provide for consultation at local as well as national level on severance provisions. Police regulations are made on a national basis and consultation on them takes place properly at the national level. Our undertaking to consult the relevant interests through the PNB machinery provides all the safeguards that are needed. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West will feel able to withdraw his new clauses.
The arguments in amendment No. 21 are based on the mistaken premise that, in all forces, it is the deputy chief constable who is in effective charge of complaints and discipline issues. That is not the case. In some forces, those matters are not even nominally the responsibility of the deputy chief constable. In others, while the deputy chief constable may have the nominal responsibility, all decision making takes place at a lower level. It is, and should remain, a matter for the chief constable to decide how to organise his force.
Amendment No. 21 would impose a rigidity on police management structures by requiring the chief constable to nominate one of his assistant chief constables to have responsibility for complaints and disciplinary matters and to consult the police authority as to his choice before implementing it. Such an arrangement would damage flexibility and impinge on the chief constable's operational control.
No doubt the amendment is related to the proposed abolition of the role of deputy chief constable. In many forces, the deputy chief constable handles complaints and disciplinary matters prior to a hearing because, under the present system, the chief constable must remain separate and aloof from them in order to be unbiased when he hears disciplinary cases. However, there is no statutory provision requiring those matters to be under the oversight of a deputy chief constable and, as I have already said, in many forces that is not what happens.
What of amendment No. 23? The essential quality of a deputy is that he or she carries out the full range of duties in the absence of the chief constable. The Bill currently provides for all the powers and duties of a chief constable to be exercised by a designated assistant chief constable in the absence of the chief constable or while the chief constable post is vacant. While the chief constable is available, there is no need for anyone else to exercise his powers or duties. That point was made time and again in Committee. The chief constable is able to delegate to his assistant chief constable whatever tasks he thinks appropriate, and that is thoroughly sensible. Amendment No. 23 adds nothing to the provision already contained in clause 6.
7.15 pm
With regard to amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 66, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained on Second Reading the reasons for the Government's decision to reduce the number of police ranks. There are obviously benefits to the police service in having a less top-heavy management structure. There would be clearer and more direct communication, more officers available for front-line duties and swifter progression for officers through the management hierarchy. All those points must be important. That is why the ranks of chief superintendent and deputy chief constable are to be abolished.
Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation accept the need for reform of the police rank structure. The issue has already been discussed at great length and the overwhelming opinion is that all the responsibilities currently discharged by superintendents and chief superintendents can be managed more efficiently and effectively within a restructured single superintendent rank.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 relate to performance related pay. Bearing in mind the time and the fullness of debate in Committee, if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is short of interesting breakfast reading tomorrow, he can revisit columns 194 to 199 of our Committee proceedings. I suspect that he would find that reading stimulating—at least the part when I was expanding on the very subject on which he now claims that I was somewhat Trappist.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy. They would require approval of regulations by each House of Parliament rather than their being subject to the negative resolution procedure, as at present. They would mean that only one police authority could be covered by one set of regulations. Imagine the

weight and pressure on parliamentary business! They would require the Secretary of State to lay police authority and chief constable representations before Parliament.
Although I know it will disappoint the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and in spite of the alluring nature of the entreaties made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—

Sir Anthony Durant: With regard to the severance matter, the Metropolitan police have introduced some severance arrangements. Where will those arrangements stand when the statutory instrument is produced?

Mr. Wardle: As I have explained, the undertaking that I have given is that there will be consultation, but there will not be a statutory provision for that consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the undertaking that I have provided.
In spite of the entreaties of Opposition Members, I urge the House to reject the new clauses and the amendments.

Mr. John McFall: I will be brief, and concentrate on the issue as it affects Scotland. I lament the fact that, again, the Government have not rethought this matter. Two ranks have been abolished simply because of the revolt in the other place. There has been no consultation in Scotland with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) or other police ranks. The decision was dogmatic and has meant the flattening of the police structure for its own sake.
When we consider that the police have nine ranks compared with 12 in the civil service and 11 in the Army, it is clear that efficiency in terms of police ranks exists in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Office has already admitted to the police that no money will be saved through this flattening of the ranks. The police will still be required to do the job. What will happen is that a superintendent will be appointed; he will be labelled a senior superintendent, and the extra money will go to him.
If no money is saved, what are the advantages that the Government seek? Sadly, there will be no advantages, but there will be many disadvantages. Taken together with performance-related pay and fixed-term contracts, what will happen is that ambitious young officers will be content to stay below the rank of chief superintendent and not proceed to those levels where they will be subject to four or five renewals of fixed-term contracts.
Every police force in Scotland is below the median for the United Kingdom in terms of promoted ranks. If the Government think that too many officers are being promoted, they can introduce the on-cost formula and prohibit all police forces from having more than a certain percentage in promoted posts, in terms of either cost or the number of individuals. That would stop forces promoting more individuals than the formula allowed and it would give chief constables the flexibility which they so desperately require and which the Government say they wish to provide. By abolishing those ranks, the Government will interfere with the command structure and introduce a rigidity into operational duties.
For example, the Strathclyde and Grampian regions in Scotland are different by nature. The Strathclyde region has 15 divisional command structures, and each division is larger than the entire size of Dumfries and Galloway. The Grampian region is very much rural-based. I have spoken to the chief constables of both areas. The chief constable in Strathclyde told me that he would like the post of chief


superintendent retained, whereas the chief constable in Grampian would like the post of chief inspector retained for operational flexibility. The Government are precluding that by abolishing the two ranks. They should consider that we have had two emergencies in Scotland in the past few years. The first was the Lockerbie disaster—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are keeping the role of chief inspector.

Mr. McFall: I am talking about flexibility for the Strathclyde region, which wants the rank of chief superintendent retained, and the Grampian region, which wants its chief inspectors retained. My point is that the chief constables want that operational flexibility, but the Government are denying them that. The emergencies which occurred, sadly, a few years ago with Lockerbie and only about a month ago with the Chinook helicopter in the Mull of Kintyre, have shown that flexibility is necessary. The Government's proposals will not give that flexibility or operational command structure.
In terms of flexibility, efficiency and decentralised management, I ask the Government to consider what the chief constables have said and allow them the flexibility which these forces of disparate nature require.

Sir Anthony Durant: As I have received reassurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. I do not know what Labour will do with regard to the rank of superintendent, but I wish to withdraw the new clause relating to severance provisions.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES: LICENSING

'After section 5 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Private security services: licensing

5A.—(l) There shall be established a special police authority for the licensing and regulation of organisations or individuals purporting to offer crime prevention or detection services.
(2) The membership of the authority shall be comprised of such number of persons as the Secretary of State may specify from among members of police authorities established under section 3 of this Act.
(3) In carrying out its functions under this section, the authority shall—

(a) consult and have regard to the views of persons representative of chief officers of police; and
(b) have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State.


(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument establish arrangements under which the authority may recover the costs of carrying out any duties under this section.
(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise or purport to offer crime prevention or detection services unless they are licensed by the authority established under this section.
(6) It shall be the duty of any person licensed under this section—

(a) to ensure that they have sufficient available funds or are bonded to cover any tort in respect of which they might reasonably become liable; and
(b) to provide evidence of this on request to the authority or to the chief constable or the police authority of any area in which they operate.


(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) of this section shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".'. —[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, we had quite a debate about the current problems of the private security industry. I hasten to add that the problems relate not to the more established and responsible part of the industry but to the less responsible part—that which is outside the regulation of the voluntary organisations dealing with the industry. In Committee, we sought to have a system which would put some power into the hands of chief constables to enable them to deal with problems when they arise. Our amendments were rejected by the Minister.
In the new clause, we seek to have a national system of licensing and regulating the private security industry, but making it responsible and accountable to local police forces which, of course, deal with issues that arise on a local basis. The system would have a nice symmetry in that it would be local in terms of accountability, using the professionalism of the police service, but would provide the national structure which is necessary if we are to deal with the issue properly. In Committee, several references were made to ways of dealing with those issues on a voluntary basis.
The private security industry recognises the need for proper regulation. I have had comments from the industry which suggest that there is a welcome for the coming together of the two major associations in the United Kingdom, which between them govern some 74 per cent. of private security provision. Obviously, it is beneficial for industry members to belong to a merged association. From the same source, I heard the comment that the ultimate goal must be statutory regulation, and that any such accommodation would leave out the 25 per cent. of the industry which causes the greatest concern not only to the public and to the Labour party but to the security industry itself.
I make it clear that the need for statutory regulation of the private security industry is well recognised in the industry. It is not good enough simply to leave it to voluntary regulation because voluntary regulations regulate only those who volunteer.
In Committee, I warned the Minister that we have seen the rise of vigilantes and people coming into areas to improve the security of people's homes. Some of my constituents have been approached by individuals who say that they operate a security system and will look after homes in an area for a weekly payment. They sometimes hint that homes might not be so secure if money is not paid. I am not suggesting that those people always intend to break the law, but their hints are interpreted by residents as a form of threat. Such behaviour is close to operating a protection system, or at least being perceived to be so. That must be unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I have come across an incident in which those who were proposing a security system on a small estate had told the police of their plans and then told local people that they had the support and approval of the police, which was not the case. Such developments are worrying to the private security industry as well as to the public and ourselves, and underline the need for proper statutory regulation.
The police in my area are concerned that they do not have powers to move in and nip such problems in the bud. That is a general problem which is reflected by many constituents up and down the country. The new clause would provide a tidy way of approaching the problem


without forming a great new bureaucracy. It would regulate the industry in a way which is now urgent. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Shersby: I support the concept that the private security industry should be properly regulated by statute— and I am on the record as having said that on a number of occasions. Indeed, I have supported proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for that purpose.
Today, a number of private security organisations of one sort or another provide quasi police and security services, often on private premises. A good example is the sort of shopping mall which is becoming increasingly prevalent, where it is not unusual to find an individual dressed in a fancy uniform who has the role of private security officer.
At a recent election campaign, one of the candidates —this will be of interest to a number of my colleagues in the House—was told: "You cannot come in here to conduct your campaign. I am in charge of what goes on here. I am a private security officer. You cannot come into the shopping precinct."
Other private security services are being offered to my constituents. For example, some individuals offer to keep a special watch on a house for 20p a day. They have a van and a video camera, and they will ensure that people have the extra security that will put their minds at rest. It is unsatisfactory that private individuals who are not screened in any way can offer such a service. They may well be driving round the streets with video cameras recording the goings-on of private citizens because they have been paid to do so by other private citizens in the same street. That raises several issues, some of which have been in the news during the past day or two.
There is therefore a need for private security to be properly regulated and for all of us to know to whom private security forces are accountable. If a Member of Parliament is prevented from entering any premises by a private security officer, or if an individual suffers some personal restraint or even assault at the hands of a private security officer, does that person have the same recourse to the police complaints procedures as if the officer involved was a member of a regular, properly established police force? I think that the answer to that question is no.
7.30 pm
There is a proliferation of private security organisations. Some of them are perfectly reputable and are well known. I have no criticism of any particular force, but more and more of them are coming into existence. The time has come when people should be clearly aware of their rights and of the protection that is available to the individual under the law if an officer of a private security force takes action which would lead to an appeal if it was taken by an officer in a regular police force.
Therefore, I hope-that my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Even if my hon. Friend feels unable to accept the new clause this evening, I hope that he will give the House an assurance that the matter is at the forefront of the minds of

Home Office Ministers and that the necessary action will be taken to deal with it. The matter deserves the serious consideration of the Home Office at an early date.

Mr. Maclennan: I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that regulation of the security industry merits careful thought by Ministers. The growth of vigilantism and organisations which come pretty close to offering protection rackets rather than security services must be watched. Regulation and licensing may prove to be necessary to protect the public.
Certain problems with new clause 8 lead me to doubt whether the Government are likely to accept it. New clause 8 seems to be widely cast in recommending
the licensing and regulation of organisations or individuals purporting to offer crime prevention".
That would seem almost to require the regulation and licensing of locksmiths. I do not believe that that was in the mind of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The new clause also implies that, if there is no cash nexus between the member of the public and the organisation, it is questionable whether there is a need for regulation. That is perhaps a slight defect of drafting.
Putting aside matters of drafting, the purpose of new clause 8 is sound. We have to watch the growth of private security organisations. In a society in which there is an alarming breakdown of law and order in some communities which almost stretches police resources beyond their easy limits, the temptation to rely on such organisations is great.
There are undoubtedly some perfectly reputable companies which contract to offer services which, on the face of it, look very much like private policing. Such developments are mushrooming. I should like to hear from the Minister tonight exactly what consideration the Government have given to the problems. I do not want to hear merely a dismissal of the new clause as untimely, ill-thought-out or whatever. What thought are the Government giving to the protection of the public?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I support new clause 8 and remind the House that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. The central concern of new clause 8 is that a burglar can be in prison, come out of prison, buy himself a dog, deliver leaflets through people's letter boxes or to shops saying that he is a security guard, wear a uniform and pass himself off as one. There are no regulations to stop him doing that. Therefore, it is essential that we have a decent and proper regulation of an expanding industry.
Much of the industry is entirely reputable. Several companies adopt the highest standards. However, there is also in the industry a group of organisations and individuals which are less than reputable and regulation is desperately needed. It is a growing industry. In 1987 the private security sector was worth approximately £800 million. By 1992—the latest year for which figures are available—it was worth more than £2 billion. The figure is rising. The industry employs about 250,000 people. They are involved in patrolling housing estates, shopping centres and factories as well as working as store detectives and private investigators. Yet the Government seem not to be prepared to display any interest in proper regulation of the sector to protect the public.
We need to regulate training, ensure that companies are properly insured for civil torts and prevent criminals from operating in private security. It is nonsense to suggest, as


I suspect the Government may, that professional bodies in the industry can regulate the sector effectively. The main reason why they cannot is that many small businesses are not members of the professional bodies. Where the professional bodies have membership, they are struggling valiantly and doing good work to regulate the industry, but so long as people who enter the industry do not need to become members of the professional bodies, those bodies can in no way ensure reasonable and reputable standards. Companies are under no obligation to join.
In my county of Warwickshire and in my constituency, private security companies are knocking on people's doors offering to patrol areas or villages for £2 or £1.50 per week per household. The chief constable of Warwickshire estimates that, if he had that extra income from each household in Warwickshire, he could put an extra 2,000 fully trained, properly regulated and properly vetted police officers on the streets to reduce crime.
Some private security organisations may be reputable, but the public do not know whether they are. They do not know whether the people who knock on their doors are criminals or honest business men. They do not know whether the companies are insured for civil torts or uninsured. They do not know whether they are commercially viable and reputable or not. The industry cries out for regulation and for basic standards to be enforced. If the Government will not accept the detail of new clause 8, let them at least show that they recognise the need for urgent regulation. The police want it and the public want it. Let the Government recognise that and say so.

Mr. Charles Wardle: This has been an interesting debate. No hon. Member on either side of the House would deny that there are some cowboys operating in the private security industry. The question that matters is whether a system of statutory regulation would prevent the cowboys from doing what they do now. I do not believe that that would be the case, as I shall show in a moment.
There is no evidence that there is a greater level of criminality in the private security industry than generally in Britain. That is not to deny that there are cowboys at work, but new clause 8 does not provide the remedy that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has recommended. The Government are determined in any case to lift unnecessary controls on business and to avoid adding new ones.
Of course, we would be ready to consider legislation if there was a clear and demonstrable need for statutory control. Such a need simply does not exist. Regulation would add nothing of benefit to the industry. Some disreputable individuals undoubtedly operate on the fringes of the industry and give it a bad name. No one denies that they exist, but it is unworldly to assume that they would just vanish as soon as the House introduced statutory controls.
The supporters of statutory regulation believe that its introduction would somehow raise standards straight away, but the industry is increasingly mature and professional, and it is doing a great deal to improve standards. Self-regulation is the way forward. The industry has accepted the discipline of that and made a great deal of progress. It already provides better training for its staff, and individual employees may study for national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications.
These days, the well-established British standards are more relevant to the companies and their products. In the past few years, the industry has increasingly come to believe that it is not enough to say that certain standards are maintained, but that companies' adherence to those standards must be independently demonstrated. For that purpose, the industry has established the inspectorate of the security industry and the National Approval Council for Security Systems. Both those organisations perform independent and reliable inspections of companies and of their products or services.

Mr. Shersby: I was not talking about the companies that my hon. Friend is describing, which belong to an organisation which is quite capable of self-regulation, but about the kind of one-man bands that go around our constituencies. Surely our local chief superintendents should have some discretion to decide whether such people are able to offer their quasi-police services to private individuals. That is what the argument is about.

Mr. Wardle: If the local police have any reason to believe that any such operators are breaking the law, no doubt they will take action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also spoke of recourse to the police complaints procedure, but there is no such recourse. As I said earlier, there is recourse under the law, however, because the employees of private security firms have no powers other than those of the private citizen. The police would bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend also spoke about vetting personnel who may be considered for jobs with security firms. That matter is currently being considered in a consultation document entitled "The Access to Criminal Records for Employment Vetting Purposes". It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the conclusions of that consultation exercise, but my hon. Friend has made an interesting point.
For the reasons that I have cited, there is no evidence to suggest that such a deep-rooted problem exists in the industry as to require the heavy-handed approach of statutory regulation. I therefore urge the House to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 280.

Division No. 284]
[7.42 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bell, Stuart
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Chisholm, Malcolm


Benton, Joe
Church, Judith






Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corston, Ms Jean
Keen, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S.


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Liddell, Helen


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Loyden, Eddie


Denham, John
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McAvoy, Thomas


Donohoe, Brian H.
Macdonald, Calum


Dowd, Jim
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Ms Angela
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Enright, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Etherington, Bill
McWilliam, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meacher, Michael


Fraser, John
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Michael, Alun


Galbraith, Sam
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Galloway, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Godsiff, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
Olner, William


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hodge, Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L.


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pope, Greg


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Doug
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Raynsford, Nick





Redmond, Martin
Straw, Jack


Reid, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rendel, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Trimble, David


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tyler, Paul


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ruddock, Joan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Sheerman, Barry
Watson, Mike


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Wright, Dr Tony


Spellar, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Stevenson, George
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Churchill, Mr


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rockford)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arbuthnot, James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evennett, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Butler, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carttiss, Michael
French, Douglas






Fry, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Sir Roger


Gallie, Phil
Moss, Malcolm


Gardiner, Sir George
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Garnier, Edward
Nelson, Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gorst, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Page, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Paice, James


Hague, William
Patnick, Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hannam, Sir John
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Pickles, Eric


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hawkins, Nick
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawksley, Warren
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Rathbone, Tim


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Richards, Rod


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Speed, Sir Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knox, Sir David
Spring, Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sproat, Iain


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Maclean, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thomason, Roy


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Marland, Paul
Tredinnick, David


Marlow, Tony
Trend, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Willetts, David


Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark


Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. David Lightbown and


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 18

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES

'After section 3 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Membership of police authorities

3A. — (1) The number of members of each police authority established under section 3 of this Act shall be specified by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
(2) The number of members of an authority specified by an order under subsection (1) of this section shall be an odd number no fewer than seventeen.
(3) An order made under subsction (1) above may relate to the membership of more than one authority, and any such order may be varied by a subsequent order.
(4) Before making an order under subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall consult any relevant councils.
(5) Where an authority is of the opinion that in order to ensure fair representation on it of—

(a) each relevant council within the authority's area;
(b) the population and geographical density of the area concerned and of each unit of representation within the area; and
(c) the political balance among councils and among members required by paragraph 4(b) of Schedule 1B to this Act

it requires the number of its members to be varied, it shall submit a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
(6) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (5) of this section he shall—

(a) if he approves it, lay an order under subsection (1) to give it effect; or
(b) where he does not approve it, publish his reasons for not approving it and lay those before both Houses of Parliament.


(7) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) Schedules 1B and 1C to this Act shall have effect in relation to police authorities established under section 3 and the appointment of their members.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 20—Constitution of Northern Ireland Police Authority—
'For paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 (The Police Authority) to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 there shall be substituted—
1. The Police Authority shall consist of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and fifteen persons.
2. — (1) Nine members of the Authority shall be members of District Councils in Northern Ireland, appointed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland and it shall be the duty of the Association to secure as far as practicable that the members it appoints are representative of the community in Northern Ireland.


(2) Five members of the Authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure as far as practicable that among the members appointed under this paragraph is a person representative of—

(i) the trade unions.
(ii) agriculture, industry and commerce, and
(iii) voluntary organisations having as their principle object, or one of their principle objects, the welfare of children or young persons.


(3) Three members of the Authority shall be resident magistrates or judges authorised to exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.".'.
Amendment No. 62, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.
Government amendment No. 44.
Amendment No. 22, in schedule 2, page 53, line 21, after 'prevailing', insert `between the councils and'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 54, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
Government amendment No. 45.
Amendment No. 15, in page 56, line 22, leave out from `years' to ', or' in line 23.

Mr. Michael: I appear at the Dispatch Box as the defender of two endangered species—the Conservative voter and the Conservative councillor. They, too, should be protected from the actions of the Government, and they should have a voice within police authorities. That will not happen if the difficulties of achieving a proper balance of political representation within a police authority is limited in the way the Government wish.
New clause 18, in particular, proposes that,
Where an authority is of the opinion that in order to ensure fair representation…of each relevant council within the authority's area; the population and geographical density of the area concerned and of each unit of representation within the area; and the political balance among councils and among members
the authority should say that it needs an increase in numbers. It is surely right that there should be a balance on the authority.
First, it is right that each relevant council within the authority's area should be represented. It is important that there is an understanding of the policing of the area among the leadership of the local authority. We have said on a number of occasions that the joint working of police authorities and local authorities is very important. The Minister pays lip service to that, but it is important that it is contained within the institutions.
Secondly, the population and geographical density of the area make a difference, as can be seen within the existing police authority areas. One can look at the Greater Manchester police authority area, or at the changes within the South Wales police area, where the number of unitary authorities will be as large as the number of members under the minimum composition which is allowed at present.
That does not allow for opposition groups, and we feel that minorities within the overall scope of political involvement in an area should be represented. Therefore, either there is a representative from one of those authorities who is not from the majority group and thus cannot speak for the whole council, which means that the leading voice

on that authority is not heard, or there is an increase in the numbers to allow for minority representation from within the area.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I can illustrate the hon. Gentleman's point with an example from the Northumbria police authority area. If Northumberland council is to have only one member of the police authority, on the present balance of the council it would probably be a Labour councillor. But the Labour party mainly represents the urban south-east of the county, and the rural areas which are represented by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors would be unrepresented. That point has been put quite fairly to me by police authority members, and it is a view generally shared among all parties on the authority. More than one representative from the county would be needed to achieve the spread that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that illustration. There are a number of examples around the country, although the situation may not arise in some areas—for instance, where there is shire county representation. Where a county is to be moved to a unitary authority, as in Gwent, the number of unitary authorities would still be sufficient for the number of representatives allowed for by the Government to be met while including some opposition representation. That is fine, but it does not apply in all circumstances.
In my view, it would be dangerous to require a composition which does not allow for those minorities. Apart from anything else, the vagaries of political life are such that there can be switches, and it is always best if a minority which becomes the majority has had some experience of the workings of an authority. In view of the need for continuity and in pursuit of conservatism with a small "c", I should have thought that that would commend itself to the Minister, and lead him to accept the new clause.
The Minister stated in Committee that the Secretary of State would not use the powers in the Bill which allow him to vary upwards the numbers on a police authority—an amendment won following a debate in the House of Lords —very often at all. He said that the powers would be used responsibly, but very sparingly—indeed, exceptionally. All that we seek is that the number of occasions on which it is used—whether they be few or many—should be determined by the need for proper representation on a police authority. We therefore seek to persuade the Government that the powers contained in the Bill allow for greater flexibility as to size than the Government seem to envisage.
There are advantages to be gained where it is possible to achieve proper representation within a small size of police authority, but that aim should not be pursued inflexibly or as a matter of dogma. For instance, there are instances in which nine elected members are insufficient to represent a police authority's area and the balance of political interest, so the people there will not enjoy proper representation.
8 pm
One amendment in the group seeks to remove the age limit of 70 on police authority members. In the light of debate in Committee, I hope that that will commend itself to the Minister. Magistrates who hold an appointed office, often for many years, are required to retire from front-line judicial service at 70. Their duties beyond that age are


judicial service at 70. Their duties beyond that age are fairly nominal, such as signing passport applications. With the loss of active office there follows a requirement to resign from the police authority, if the individual is a magistrate appointed by the local magistrates courts committee. Councillors, however, can hold elected office as long as they are elected to stand for public office and are returned at local council elections, and they are eligible to
A limited number of existing police authority members ably serve their communities on a police authority, and it would be wrong in principle to exclude them on age alone —the popular term is agism. I warn the Minister of the consequences of grey power. He may care to reflect that, as he grows older, he too may still want to make a contribution to public life. There should not be a blanket reason for excluding people.
If individuals under 75, 70 or 60 are not capable and responsible representatives, they should be removed by the judgment of those who appointed them—not by a cast-iron limit in the Bill. In debate on an earlier amendment, reference was made to the administrative predicament for the Bill's draftsmen, who chose a common retirement age for all new police authority members. We argue that is wrong in principle, discriminatory and misconceived.
There are many examples of individuals who assumed high public office beyond their 70th birthday. They include Lord Gladstone, Prime Minister at 82; Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor at 70; Winston Churchill, Prime Minister at 70 and again at 76; Lord Home, Foreign Secretary at 71; Lord Whitelaw, Lord President of the Council at 70; and above all, one example that should make us all pause for thought—Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa at 75. That list demonstrates that persons holding elected office, whether nationally or locally, should not be excluded on the ground of their age alone. The restriction should therefore be removed. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Trimble: I shall speak to new clause 20, in my name. I regret that, due to the selection of amendments, I have not had the opportunity to speak to new clause 21, which was tabled at the request of the Police Federation of Northern Ireland to remedy an injustice to 4,614 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—but no doubt there will be another opportunity to address that issue.
New clause 20 provides for the constitution of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. At present, that authority is appointed by the Secretary of State—period. There has been much debate about the extent to which it is proper for the Home Secretary to have some influence on the appointment of police authorities in England and Wales, and a provision has emerged which gives the Home Secretary a limited capacity to appoint one or two independent members to English police authorities.
In Northern Ireland, the police authority is appointed entirely by the Secretary of State. It is true that the Secretary of State is obliged by the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to consult various bodies, and that he is directed to ensure that the body is representative—but representative as the Secretary of State sees it—and consultation is just that. Northern Ireland has purely an appointed body.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, is in his place on the Treasury Bench, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that the present situation is becoming untenable. New clause 20 provides a new basis

for the appointment of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, based on the provisions in clause 3(1) for the constitution of authorities in England and Wales in future, having 17 members—nine from local authorities, five independent and three magistrates. That is precisely reflected in new clause 20.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke of the difficulty of balancing local authority representation, so he will be delighted to note that new clause 20 states:
it shall be the duty of the Association
of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland
to secure as far as practicable that the members it appoints are representative of the community".
I emphasise that, because in the Northern Ireland context that phrase will mean not just geographically representative but representative in terms of shades of party political opinion. That will ensure that appointed councillors are representative of the whole community.
As to the five independent members, I have not tried to replicate the detail in schedule 1 to the Bill but have carried forward some of the provisions of the 1970 Act.
The provision for three magistrates causes difficulties in Northern Ireland. One cannot equate Northern Ireland justices of the peace with those for England and Wales. Northern Ireland JPs have not exercised any magisterial or judicial function since 1935. They are an entirely different breed and not comparable with JPs in England and Wales. In Northern Ireland, resident magistrates exercise the judicial function, but the problem with drawing representation purely from resident magistrates is that there are so few of them.
Consequently, I originally drafted the new clause to include others who exercise a judicial function, but I am not sure that that is entirely appropriate. I have not had an opportunity to consult the judiciary in that regard, and they may not be entirely happy with that proposal. It has been suggested to me that the field of selection could be broadened by taking account of lay magistrates, who are appointed to juvenile courts. That might be worth thinking about. I would accept criticism of subsection (3), but the principle that it enshrines—which draws on the precedent set for England and Wales—should remain under consideration.
I repeat that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, knows that the present situation is untenable. We are in the process of appointing a new Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Minister knows that, in previous months, bodies which must be consulted under existing legislation and which have been asked for nominations have declined to make any because they are dissatisfied with the present constitution and the envisaged future role. The right hon. Gentleman must also find a chairman for the authority. Moreover, he must do so urgently because the authority is due to meet tomorrow and if it does not have a chairman, it cannot meet.
According to newspaper reports on Sunday, the Minister has already approached six people, but they have all turned him down. I understand that an announcement was made today. I hesitate to say that it is a matter of scraping the bottom of the barrel, because the individual in question is a constituent of mine—a professional quango man, whose appointment to a health authority I had occasion to comment on negatively in the House on an earlier occasion. I am tempted to say that his only apparent qualification for the police authority chairmanship, never


having sat on one before, is that he is most willing to accept direction from the Northern Ireland Office—but enough of that. The important issue is that there needs to be a rethink about the police authority's constitution. The provisions in new clause 20 would make it more representative and effective, and I tabled it to give the Under-Secretary of State the opportunity to carry public debate further.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, speaking to new clause 5, commented on the absence of a police authority for London. He said that it was outrageous that there was no democratic accountability. I endorse that sentiment, but it is also outrageous that there is no democratic accountability in Northern Ireland. New clause 20 would go some way to remedying that.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The purpose of new clause 18 is to require that the size of each police authority be settled individually before the new authorities are formed, and for the order doing so to be subject to affirmative resolution. It also provides arrangements for changing the size of police authorities subsequently in ways which seem more complex than those available in the Bill.
There are some significant policy and technical problems in the drafting and effect of the new clause. The main difficulty that it presents results from the requirement to subject to affirmative resolution an order to settle the initial size of every police authority. That order could not be made until Parliament returns at the end of October. Appointments to police authorities could not be made until well after that date, and there would be particular delay in the case of independent members. Therefore, it would not be possible to set up the new police authorities in time for them to take the steps necessary for implementation on 1 April 1995, which is the relevant date.
Implementation would have to be delayed for a year, thus prolonging the processes of change and the uncertainty in police forces and police authorities, and that would not be advisable. There are other difficulties. It seems strange that under new clause 18(5) the initiative for subsequent variations in the size of police authorities would rest exclusively with the new police authority. The Bill is deliberately silent on that matter: the initiative for enlargement may come from any interested party, and that must be right.
The new clause provides an exhaustive list of grounds for varying the size of police authorities. The trouble with such a list is that, if an authority wanted to vary the size on some other ground, the new clause as drafted would rule it out and would be unduly inflexible. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause.
Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are technical and deal with the practical consequences of the revocation or variation of an order to enlarge a police authority and are fairly straightforward.
Amendment No. 22 relates to paragraph 4 of schedule 1B of the Police Act 1964, which is inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill. That paragraph sets out certain requirements as to the political balance between the council and members of police authorities. In some police areas, only one relevant council will make appointments to the police authority. In that case, the appointments are made by the council itself and will be required to reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of that council.
In police areas covering more than one relevant council, the appointments are made by a joint committee and must reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among the members of the relevant councils when taken as a whole. Thus, for example, in a police area covering three relevant councils, all of which have the same majority party, the appointments to the police authority would not automatically all come from that party: if there were significant minority parties on each of the councils, their members would have to be considered in assessing political balance. I am sure that the House will agree that that is right.
We should not give the right to representation on police authorities exclusively to those in the majority party on the relevant councils. The amendment aims to do precisely that and seems to want to reflect only the majority party interest. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) goes wider than the South Wales police authority in the three Glamorgan counties, but the principle remains the same. The amendment is wrong and would not deal sensibly with political balance.
I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Schedule 2 requires all police authority members to step down when they reach the age of 70. We had an interesting debate on that in Committee. The amendments would remove that limit and allow some police authority members to carry on indefinitely, regardless of age. I understand the strong feelings of some hon. Members on this issue, which was discussed at length in another place and in Committee.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth rightly said, there is no hard and fast rule that a 69-year-old is fit and active while a 70-year-old is past it. We could all cite examples, as the hon. Gentleman did, of people who have contributed a great deal, in all walks of life, at advanced ages. Equally, we could cite examples of people who have carried on well beyond the age at which it would have been better to step down.
There should be a clear indication of the age at which police authority members should be expected to step down because that is a fair, consistent and dignified way for people to retire from involvement in a police authority.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The Minister spoke of a majority party having power under our amendment. The county of Cheshire is controlled by an alliance of the Conservative and Liberal parties, but the power brokers in that situation have chosen to appoint a Labour member as chairman of the authority. Under the clause, he would be disqualified. If the Minister is interested in local agreements, how can he say that such an appointment would be wrong? Should he not reflect further on that?

Mr. Wardle: I do not think so. As I said earlier, the requirements are that the elected council members of the new police authority should fairly reflect the representation on the constituent councils. It will be up to individual councils to meet and discuss that in the light of the requirement that is placed on them. The requirement is straightforward and understandable. Above all, it is fair.
Returning to the subject of the retirement age, I remind the House that magistrates are already required to step down from the bench when they reach the age of 70. That is why we chose that age for all police authority members.
It seems right that all such members should be on the same footing. The amendments would allow councillors and independent members to carry on indefinitely while their magistrate colleagues would be required to step down. That would be neither logical nor fair, although I understand the feelings that were expressed in Committee, in this House and in another place. The Bill is better as it stands, without the amendments.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I am always glad to listen to advice from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I did so carefully when he spoke to his new clause 20, which seeks to alter the way in which members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland are appointed. It would allow the majority of the authority's members to be appointed by the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland.
I am aware that there has been considerable discussion about the composition of, and appointments to, police authorities in England and Wales, but the circumstances in which the police and the police authority must operate in Northern Ireland are vastly different. In Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State appoints all the members of the authority. He is required to exercise his powers to ensure the appointment of individuals who are representative of various interests such as local authorities, commerce and child welfare organisations and also to ensure that the authority's membership is representative of the Northern Ireland community as a whole.
That was the system recommended in the Hunt report, which has provided the model for policing structures in Northern Ireland since the establishment of the police authority in 1970. The system of appointment has served the Province well since then. The authority has shown commitment and fair-mindedness in performing its functions in the most difficult circumstances. It has sought to serve the whole community in Northern Ireland and for that it deserves the highest praise.
Many of those who have served with such dedication have been local councillors and members of the political parties in the Province. The majority of the members of the authority that was appointed recently—on 29 June—were nominated by local authorities and other bodies; that fine tradition continues.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the chairmanship. I am glad to confirm that the appointment of Mr. Cook—a distinguished solicitor—was announced today.
I fear that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would endanger the tradition to which I have referred, while adding little in the way of electoral accountability. The Association of Local Authorities for Northern Ireland is a voluntary association with no statutory role in policing matters; nor does it represent all Northern Ireland's local authorities.
I note that the new clause does not explain how the chairman and vice-chairman of the authority are to be chosen. The last thing that I would wish to see is an authority riven by party political considerations, or open to accusations of domination by one group or another. Policing in Northern Ireland must be for all the community, and I consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal a retrograde move away from that principle.
I am far from certain—the hon. Gentleman himself recognised this difficulty—that it would be appropriate for registered magistrates in Northern Ireland who are full-time, legally qualified members of the judiciary to be members of a body whose remit will inevitably involve it in questions with political and security overtones. Their position is different from that of local justices of the peace who serve on authorities in England and Wales.
Finally, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently published a document making proposals and inviting comments on the future of policing structures in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the responses, including that of the hon. Gentleman's party—members of which I had the pleasure of meeting recently. Those responses will be considered very carefully.
I suggest that this is not the proper time to make changes to the arrangements for appointing the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, and that the measures proposed by the hon. Gentleman are neither appropriate nor desirable—although I shall of course reflect on them very carefully.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 19

COMMON RULES FOR GRANT-MAKING

'After section 30 of the 1964 Act there shall be inserted—

Common rules for determination of police grant

30A. —(1) Any determination of the amount of grant to be made by the Secretary of State to each authority under the provisions of section 31(2)(b) below shall be governed by common rules which the Secretary of State shall issue no later than six months before the financial year to which the determinations relate.
(2) Before issuing the common rules, or any revision of existing common rules, under subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief constables of forces maintained by those authorities".'. — [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 63, in clause 16, page 11, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
Government amendment No. 43.

Mr. Michael: We seek to ensure that the legislation allows for fairness in the determination of grant for police authorities. This is a difficult issue and at various times it has been felt that there is some unfairness in the way in which the grant is allocated—not least in areas of south Wales such as Aberdare, Merthyr, Penarth and Barry, which are currently treated as rural areas. I am sure that improvements could be made, and that the method of distribution could be fairer.
First, the new clause asks for the rules applying to the determination of grant to be common and to be applied fairly across police forces throughout England and Wales. Secondly, it asks that the rules should be understood. We propose that the Secretary of State should issue, no later than six months before the financial year, the common rules on which determinations will be made. Thirdly, we wish the Home Secretary to consult


persons representative of police authorities and of chief constables of forces maintained by those authorities
before the common rules are determined. That seems eminently sensible and fair.
We seek to delete the part of the Bill that states:
The considerations which the Secretary of State takes into account in making a determination…may be different for different authorities or different classes of authority.
Some considerations may not apply to certain authorities—the difference between "urban" and "rural", and the nature of royal residences, large public buildings or venues for major events.
Such considerations affect the policing of an area, however, and should therefore be taken into account in the authorities where they apply—but the rules should be common. The applicability of the rules may vary from authority to authority, but it seems wrong to leave the extensive discretion that seems to imply that the Home Secretary could more or less make it up as he went along, varying the rules applying to the determination of grant levels without real reason and almost at whim.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Home Secretary was being granted complete discretion on the distribution of grant. He said:
The Bill takes special care to avoid imposing such rules and specifically provides a discretion instead of a duty for the Secretary of State to use formulae or rules to allocate grant…The Bill is also designed to provide him with a power to apply any formulae or rules to part of the total grant only, and it allows him to treat different police authorities differently. That is for good reason.
That is a matter of dispute. I have suggested a way in which flexibility could be introduced to allow recognition of the different responsibilities and burdens carried by different police authorities. Surely it is wrong in principle and practice to legislate for unfairness, which is effectively what the Home Secretary is trying to do.
In Committee, the Minister alluded to work that was in hand on the
means of allocating grant to police authorities.
That work should have been in hand for many years. I have been commenting for five or six years on the method of distributing grant, and I am sure that some hon. Members have done so for much longer. Everyone knows that work needs to be done and proper conclusions need to be reached.
It should also be recognised that the work is effectively being conducted in private by a working group with no formal status. The Home Secretary is certainly not bound by the group's eventual recommendations; nor can there be any guarantee that the new formula for the allocation of police grant will fully accord with the formula used by the Secretary of State for the Environment to allocate police standard spending assessments.
Even at this late stage, there is no clarity about the intended treatment of the Metropolitan police in the grant distribution formula. Do the Government intend them to be subject to the same formula, or will they be treated as a separate class of police authority with a separate formula?
There is a glaring anomaly in regard to police authorities in Wales. When asked to give the SSAs of police authorities in England and Wales, the Home Secretary is able to provide those relating to England, but cannot give those for authorities in Wales; he refers that to the Welsh Office. Why does he not refer the SSAs for English authorities to the Department of the Environment?
I know from a conversation with the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, that in fact the SSAs are available in the Home Office. I do not understand the secrecy about information that is readily to hand and could be given by Ministers without delay. That, however, is an anomaly within an anomaly, rather than the main thrust of the debate.
The Minister rightly recognised that it is
quite unlikely any formulae could succeed from day one in fairly allocating grant to all police authorities without some modification.
He said:
We intend to introduce any changes gradually by mitigating to an acceptable level the year-on-year changes.
However, that again calls into question the likelihood of a common formula being applied to both grant and SSAs.
The Minister argued that the application of common rules
would result in police authorities suffering an abrupt and unacceptable change in funding.
That is not necessarily the case. We would expect common rules to be drawn up covering both the distribution formula and any transitional damping mechanism required to mitigate its immediate effects. It should be within the competence of the Home Office to deliver such rules—in other words, common rules, and the means of moving from the present system to those rules.
On consultation, the Minister argued that the requirement to consult formally on grant distribution would lead duplication and confusion if
the Government, through two Departments, were seen to be consulting twice on the same matter." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 May 1994; c. 294–95.]
Elsewhere in the discussion, the Minister was keen to draw a clear distinction between the grant and SSA allocations. As I have said, in the case of relations with the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment the Minister is more than willing to act in completely different ways.
The Minister cannot have it both ways—or, it seems, three or four ways. By putting the consultation on police grant on a similar footing to revenue support grant and SSAs—which is the purpose of amendment No. 116—greater consistency might be achieved. Those are simple, straightforward practical amendments, that seek to bring a degree of dependability and consistency to the way in which the grant to police authorities is calculated. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Charles Wardle: This is not a case of legislating for unfairness. We had a full debate on the subject in Committee and I made the Government's position absolutely clear. We believe that adopting common rules to allocate police grant would prevent us from funding the Metropolitan police in a suitable, satisfactory and adequate fashion, and from introducing funding changes gradually.
I explained in Committee why we cannot accept an amendment saying that the Home Secretary's determination should be governed by common rules. Reference to common rules implies that the same rules must be applied to each police authority, and that cannot be squared either with the funding of the Metropolitan police, which we all agree requires additional funding for a range of national and capital city functions, or with introducing any funding changes gradually so as to avoid large swings in resource allocation.
The Bill specifically provides discretion rather than a duty on the part of the Secretary of State to use the rules to determine the allocation of grant. It lets him treat different police authorities differently. I appreciate that, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said, the provisions are wide, but they are essential to achieve the flexibility of funding necessary to accommodate both the funding of the London force and the gradual move to formula funding.
The provision is practical and, for that reason, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I appreciate that the motivation behind the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State allocates police grant with the maximum possible input from those directly affected by the decision, but, as I have explained, there are real practical difficulties with the new clause. The proposed new section 30A(2) of the Police Act 1964 would require the Home Secretary to consult on the common rules.
However, as the House knows, the Secretary of State for the Environment already consults local government on the amount of revenue support grant to be paid to local authorities. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned that. A similar, although not precisely identical, process is undertaken by the Secretary of State for Wales. Under the new police funding regime to be introduced by the Bill, the consultations will include the allocation of standard spending assessments to the new police authorities.
There is, of course, a parallel between those allocations and the way in which Home Office specific grant will be distributed between authorities. If we were to consult on the distribution of police grant, that would duplicate an element of the consultation already undertaken within the Department of the Environment. Potentially at least, it would be a recipe for confusion if we were to consult twice, and even more so if, in each group, some of those consulted were the same as those in other groups and some were not. I hope that the House will appreciate that this is a difficult area, and we cannot give the commitments that the hon. Gentleman seeks, so I urge the House to reject the new clause.
I shall now deal briefly with amendment No. 43, in the name of the Home Secretary. It would make a small change to clause 30, which provides for the new police authorities to receive initial financing grant before they take over their full responsibilities. Under clause 30, the Secretary of State will be able to make grants to the new police authorities during the current financial year. That will give them, once they are set up, the financing necessary to operate in parallel with the existing police authorities until April next year. It will also enable them to spend money on gearing up the police forces for whose maintenance they will assume full responsibility next April, and to fulfil their full management tasks.
As currently drafted, clause 30 allows the Home Secretary to make the initial financing grants to the new police authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them, and it means that the grant cannot be made after the expenditure is incurred. We now consider that it would be prudent to ensure that grant can be paid where necessary before the expenditure in respect of which it is made has been incurred. For that reason, I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

POLICE AREAS

Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 1, line 19, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 48 and Government amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—

'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation

21AA.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

(a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,
(b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(c) the county councils which—

(i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and
(ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;


(d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order; and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'

Amendment (a) to amendment No. 57, in subsection (2), leave out 'a reduction or'.

Amendment (b) to amendment No. 57, after subsection 3(d), at end insert—
'(e) Members of Parliament representing constituencies which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;'.

Government amendments Nos. 49, 58 to 60 and 50 to 55.

Mr. Wardle: The amendments are necessary to enable us, after Royal Assent, to settle outstanding questions relating to the police boundaries in Wales. As the House will know, the Bill has been proceeding through Parliament at about the same pace as the Local Government (Wales) Bill. By convention, each Bill is drafted as if the other Bill did not exist, so as not to anticipate Parliament's decision on either Bill. The Welsh Bill is about to receive Royal Assent, so we now need to make an amendment to take account of the new local government boundaries to be created in Wales from 1 April 1996.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) knows, for North Wales and Dyfed-Powys police areas that would be entirely straightforward, with only minor boundary changes. But the shape of the new boundaries in south Wales will require significant changes to the boundaries of the South Wales and Gwent police areas, because the Rhymney valley—the new Caerphilly


district—straddles the existing boundary between those two police areas. The boundaries of the new district were not finally settled until a late stage during proceedings on the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
Although we have been discussing with the two police authorities and the two police forces the options available for settling the boundaries, those discussions obviously could not be brought to a conclusion until the boundaries of the new local government areas were settled. The changes affecting the South Wales and Gwent police areas are quite large, and it is obviously right that we should give sufficient time for all concerned to consider the available options. My right hon. and learned Friend would not want to impose a solution now, when there will not have been sufficient time for the police authorities—or, indeed, for my right hon. and learned Friend himself—to consider all the available information, including an assessment of the policing implications of the available options on the basis of the boundaries so recently, decided.
The powers provided by the amendments will therefore require the Secretary of State, before 1 April 1996 when the Welsh local government changes take effect, to make an order—or if necessary more than one order, although that seems unlikely—settling the police boundaries in Wales. I can confirm that for North Wales and Dyfed-Powys we expect that the order will merely redefine the existing boundaries, in terms of the new Welsh local government areas, including some small but important changes in the north-east of Dyfed-Powys police area necessitated by the Welsh local government changes.
I cannot, however, say what will need to be done in South Wales and Gwent. The position today is that my right hon. and learned Friend has not reached any decision on how to resolve the boundary problem affecting the South Wales and Gwent police areas. Discussions have been going on with the police authorities, on the basis of the available options.
There are three options, any of which could be put into effect by means of the powers set out in the amendment. The first option is to put the whole of the new district covering the Rhymney valley into the Gwent police area, making the Gwent force somewhat larger than it is at present. The second option is to put the whole of the new district into the South Wales police area, which would make the South Wales force a little larger and the Gwent force somewhat smaller. The third is for the two police areas to be combined.
The discussions already held with those concerned mean that we have committed ourselves to a process of consultation on the basis for those three options. Although we do not want prolonged uncertainty, my right hon. and learned Friend certainly will not rush into a decision; we want the policing needs of the area, and the wishes of those concerned in the area, to be properly explored. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have discussed that subject at some length—most constructively, I feel. The amendment includes a requirement for consultation, which in a sense is unnecessary because we have already made it clear that we are committed to that course.
If those concerned in the area could reach agreement on a way forward on a basis that provides a solution that my right hon. and learned Friend regards as satisfactory in

policing terms, he would use the new power to give effect to that agreement. We certainly want to proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can. That has been the purpose of the discussions that have been going on locally. We have received welcome indications in the past few days, since the amendment was tabled, that agreement seems more likely. The two police authorities have asked for postponement of a meeting with Home Office officials, which was due to take place tomorrow, so that they can have more time to discuss matters between themselves; I welcome that development. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is aware of that and has been having discussions himself.
The other, minor, amendments in the group are consequential and enable the necessary changes to be made to the schedule that defines the boundaries of the police areas, which will need to be amended to define Welsh police areas by reference to the new Welsh local government areas. They will permit transitional provisions in the order and deal with other minor and entirely consequential matters.

Mr. Michael: I welcome both the spirit in which the Minister wrote to me about his intentions with regard to the amendments and the way in which he has introduced them today. I accept that most of the amendments in the group are minor and consequential and are intended to make two pieces of legislation fit together. I do not intend to take time on them. Instead, I shall come straight to one issue that is of major concern and on which, in the light of what the Minister said, I hope we may proceed in a spirit of co-operation. That issue is the impact on police authority boundaries of the Local Government (Wales) Bill.
Will the Minister confirm that it is only in relation to local government reorganisation arising from the Local Government (Wales) Bill that those powers can or will be exercised, and that he will not seek to use the powers except as a consequence of the boundary changes which would make a change necessary?

Mr. Charles Wardle: indicated assent.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's indication of assent. Will he also confirm that there are only two places where boundary changes are relevant to that extent? The first of those is the Llanrhaiadr-ym-Mochnant and Llanfyllin area. My understanding is that everyone agrees that that can be dealt with as a simple consequence and that there is no question of having to use powers to merge or vary police authorities to any great extent, but that any transfer of resources and responsibilities can be and will be dealt with by agreement in a fairly simple manner.

Mr. Wardle: indicated assent.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his assent on that point.
That leaves the Rhymney and Islwyn area. The Rhymney area, currently in the South Wales police authority, and the Islwyn area, currently in the Gwent police authority, would come together to compose the new Caerphilly authority. Am I right in assuming that it is only in resolving the impact of that boundary change on police authority boundaries that any question arises, and that outside that, there would be no intention at all of using the powers? The Minister is indicating that that is where we have a problem, which is extremely helpful, because that


makes it easy for us to have a common purpose—to end up with an agreement on the right form of policing for that area.
As the Minister rightly said, there have been meetings during the past week, and I was delighted when I met representatives of each of the four county councils—the three Glamorgans and Gwent—to find that the members and the leaders of those authorities are, indeed, keen to find common agreement which could lead to a recommendation to the Department.
Obviously, it takes a little more work to reach a specific recommendation. However, I can tell the Minister that, at the meeting that I requested, which was held at very short notice in the past week, agreement was reached that the two clerks of the police authorities would write jointly to all members of both police authorities to call them to a meeting at which it is intended that the two chief constables will speak on the policing issues relating to the Rhymney and Islwyn area. That positive spirit gives us a possibility of reaching agreement.
Any hon. Member—a number of Welsh colleagues have spoken to me—would be concerned about any suggestion that a merger was about to occur. The reassurance given by the Minister of State in another place was referred to earlier. He said:
My right hon. Friend has no intention at present of amalgamating anything, but it is perfectly possible in the course of the next 10, 20 or 30 years that amalgamations will have to take place." —[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol.551, c.324.]
I take it that the Minister would be willing to reassure us that his intention in Wales is not to depart in any way from the spirit and substance of that earlier reassurance.
The Minister will know of the sensitivity in relation to the Gwent police force and the Dyfed-Powys police force. There is also a feeling that we do not want the South Wales police force to become over-large. Indeed, the North Wales police force serves a considerable area. It is the area in which I was born and brought up, so I take a personal interest—as do hon. Members of all the parties represented in Wales.
I have tabled three small amendments to amendment No. 57. The first would leave out the words "a reduction or". That would mean a retention of the same number of police forces in Wales or—I say with tongue in cheek—an increase in the number of police forces in Wales. For instance, the Minister may have it in mind to deal with the situation by splitting the South Wales police force in two, although he has not referred to such a suggestion.
If we are talking of any reorganisation that is not simply consequential, we should look at all the options. If we ruled out the reduction in the number of police forces in Wales and established that there would be no intention of bringing it down from four, it would be extremely helpful. Obviously, I would be greatly reassured if the Minister would accept that amendment. If he cannot, a positive response, in the spirit in which I have moved the amendment, would be helpful.
8.45 pm
Secondly, I would insert as consultees the
Members of Parliament representing constituencies which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;".
That would refer only to the South Wales police and Gwent police areas. Thanks to the Minister's courtesy in writing to me last week, I have been able to speak to large numbers of my colleagues in Gwent and in South Wales, and, in

doing so, have observed not only party boundaries in doing so. There is a great deal of interest among Members of Parliament in the policing of their areas.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: None of them are here.

Mr. Michael: I speak for them. The hon. Gentleman, who has wandered into the Chamber at a late hour, probably after a heavy dinner, ought to behave himself and listen to the debate, rather than interrupting in an unhelpful way.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a great deal of interest in the matter. One Opposition Member has just come in, but when I came in—and I am not especially interested in the matter—there was a complete absence of Opposition Members of any kind. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to make such assertions when they are clearly untrue?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair obviously observes that interest can be measured either by quality or quantity.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although we did not have much quality in that intervention. Throughout the Gwent and South Wales police authorities, my hon. Friends have taken part in constructive discussions on those issues outside the Chamber. I am conveying their composite views to the Minister, who has treated the matter seriously and with courtesy. The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate does him no credit.
Perhaps we may return to serious business. The interest of Members of Parliament has been constructive during the past few days and will continue to be so. We have arranged for an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the issue in the hope that we, as well as the police authorities, may move towards a consensus. That would be helpful to the Minister, helpful to good policing in the area and helpful to the general atmosphere in which policing may continue.
My third amendment asks the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to proceed by consensus in making orders under subsection (1). The amendment was not selected, but I hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will confirm that he will seek the use of these powers only in the context outlined in the amendment—I hope that he can answer in that spirit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would not be in order for the Minister to respond to amendment (c). It was not selected. Whatever spirit moves hon. Members outside this Chamber is for them to determine—but not now and not here.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want some idea of how the Minister will exercise the powers that this House is about to grant him; I am sure that that will influence the minds of right hon. and hon. Members when they respond to the Minister's request.
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has approached this issue. In return, I offer him a spirit of co-operation on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies throughout south Wales and in Gwent. If the matter is carried through in this atmosphere, I hope that we will be able to come up with a single proposal for the Minister which he will be able in turn to recommend to his right hon. and learned Friend.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my points. Any reassurances from him will take us a long way forward.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The amendment caused some consternation in the Dyfed-Powys area, both on the part of the chief constable and on the part of the clerk to the police authority.
I have been greatly reassured by the Minister's remarks today. I note that he has communicated with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Had the chief constable and clerk of the Dyfed-Powys police authority been notified, a great deal less activity than has taken place in the past three days would have been necessary. The Dyfed-Powys police authority runs a small force, and it has been anxious about the prospect of amalgamation or of changes to its boundaries.
I note what my hon. Friend has said, and on the basis of his assurance that there is no intention to alter the Dyfed-Powys boundaries—apart from what has been outlined in respect of the changes in the north-east corner following on from the Local Government (Wales) Bill—I am content with his proposal.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I served on the Standing Committee that discussed the Local Government (Wales) Bill, and I, too, am relieved to hear that there are no immediate plans for amalgamations. During the passage of that Bill, five fire brigades and five ambulance services disappeared in Wales—their numbers were cut from eight to three—so I came here this evening with some trepidation, as did other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
I am greatly reassured by the Minister's remarks, and greatly relieved that our four excellent police forces in Wales are to be fully retained.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I hope that this debate will have provided the clarification sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I listened with care to what the latter had to say about amendments (a) and (b). Perhaps it will be convenient for the House if I add a few remarks about them. I hope that I can deal with them quickly and in a way that will provide the hon. Gentleman with the further assurance that he wants. Incidentally, I commend him for the constructive way in which he has participated in these affairs.
The second amendment deals with consultation with Members of Parliament. I will always carefully consider any views expressed by hon. Members. In relation to the boundary problems between south Wales and Gwent, local Members, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, are well aware of the issues.
The second amendment, in respect of north Wales and Dyfed-Powys, is equally unnecessary. Those police areas are in effect settled, as I am sure those concerned will confirm, when we begin to use the powers that the Government amendment will give us.
On the first amendment, I have already made it clear that we will proceed on the basis of agreement if we possibly can. I suggest that adding an undertaking to the Bill would be unnecessary. We cannot guarantee to proceed by agreement or rule out the possibility of amalgamation until we know that agreement has been

reached between the parties, and that any agreement that they may reach represents a satisfactory solution in policing terms.
As a result of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has had to say, and of what I have learnt recently, I am now more hopeful that these conditions will in due course be satisfied. But the House will acknowledge that they certainly have not been met yet. Until we can be certain that a satisfactory agreement can be reached, it would be wrong not to have powers that just might be needed. Without them, my right hon. and learned Friend risks being put in the impossible position of having no power to resolve an impasse between the authorities, or no alternative but to implement arrangements that he regarded as unsatisfactory in policing terms. That would not be a responsible way to proceed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand. Given these assurances, I hope he will feel able not to move his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE AUTHORITIES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 2, line 33, at end insert—

'Reductions in size of police authorities

3B. — (1) This section applies to any order under subsection (2) of section 3A of this Act which varies or revokes an earlier order so as to reduce the number of a police authority's members.
(2) Before making an order to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the authority,
(b) the councils which are relevant councils in relation to the authority for the purposes of Schedule 1B to this Act, and
(c) any panel (or magistrates' courts committee) which is responsible, or is represented on a joint committee which is responsible, for the appointment of members of the authority.


(3) An order to which this section applies may include provision as to the termination of the appointment of the existing members of the authority and the making of new appointments or re-appointments." ' — [Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 13

ALTERATION OF POLICE AREAS

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 7, line 40, after 'county,' insert—
'() a county borough in Wales,'.

No. 57, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—

'Alteration of Welsh police areas on local government reorganisation

21 AA. — (1) The Secretary of State shall by order made before 1st April 1996 make such alterations to police areas in Wales as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the reorganisation of local government in Wales taking place on that date.
(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under subsection (1) of this section include alterations that result in a reduction or an increase in the number of police areas, but not alterations that result in the division of any county or county borough between two or more police areas.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make an order under subsection (1) of this section only after he has consulted every body within the following paragraphs which is in existence when the order is made—

(a) the police authorities established under section 3 of this Act for the police areas altered by the order,


(b) the police authorities which are to be superseded by the police authorities mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(c) the county councils which—

(i) are the councils of counties wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order, and
(ii) are to cease to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;


(d) the councils of the counties and county boroughs established by virtue of that Act which are wholly or partly within the police areas altered by the order;


and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'

No. 49, in page 8, line 8, after 'district' insert county borough'.

No. 58, in page 8, line 43, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.

No. 59, in page 9, line 5, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.

No. 60, in page 9, line 24, after '21' insert 'or 21AA'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 18

APPEALS AGAINST DISMISSAL ETC.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 13, line 26, after 'rank', insert
', or made subject to a permanent ban on promotion, or is fined a sum exceeding one week's pay'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 67, in schedule 3, page 62, line 31, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 33 and insert
'The costs of an appellant shall be defrayed out of the police fund of the relevant police authority unless the tribunal directs otherwise'.
No. 69, in schedule 6, page 80, line 8, at end insert
'nominated by the appropriate staff association.'.

Mr. O'Brien: Here we seek to challenge the Government's view of how the Police Act 1964 should allow appeals. The Government suggest that appeals to the police appeals tribunal would be allowed only when an officer has been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank. An appeal to the tribunal would not be allowed when the officer was fined or subjected to a permanent ban on promotion.
In my submission, this creates an anomaly. Let us consider an allegation of improper conduct made against an inspector and against a constable and based on exactly the same facts. Suppose that the allegation is proved in the first hearing, and the inspector is demoted. Suppose that the constable is fined £700. Both appeal to their chief constable, and are refused.
The situation of the two officers then diverges, because the inspector is entitled to appeal to the police appeals tribunal. He wins. His demotion is reversed; but the police constable cannot appeal to the police appeals tribunal, so he has to pay the £700 fine. In effect, he remains convicted of that disciplinary offence. Such an unjust result cannot be sustained in all conscience. The matter should not be left like that. The amendment seeks equity and justice in police disciplinary rules. If he refuses to support the amendment, the Minister will have to justify allowing such an anomaly to exist.
On amendment No. 67, the Bill reverses the current position whereby the appellant is liable to pay the costs, including his own, only if the Secretary of State should so direct and he is required to give a reason for doing so. The

effect of the Government's provision would be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank—and who have therefore already suffered a severe penalty—from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Many officers will be concerned that they will not be able to afford an appeal, which would undermine police confidence in the disciplinary system.
Surely, my proposal is the best course of action. Where an officer has made a legitimate and arguable appeal, where there is a real case, his costs should be paid by the police authority; where the case is frivolous, the tribunal may direct that he loses his costs. The amendment would enable the police appeals tribunal to stop frivolous appeals and prevent waste of public money but, at the same time, it would allow officers to exercise their legitimate right to appeal.
9 pm
The Government's proposal creates injustice by deterring an officer from exercising his right of appeal. The clause contains no commitment even to pay an officer's costs when he wins a case.
Amendment No. 69 seeks to place in statute the principle that staff associations will be represented on the police appeals tribunal. In principle, the Government do not demur from that suggestion and appear to accept it. If that is the case, let us include it in the Bill and ensure that staff associations have that safeguard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and Conservative Members to support the amendment, the police and justice in police disciplinary rules.

Mr. Shersby: I had intended that my name should appear on the amendments with that of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding in the Public Bill Office, that did not happen. I want to make it clear, however, that I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks on these important amendments.
I want particularly to concentrate my attention on amendment No. 67, the purpose of which is to retain the existing position whereby an appellant's costs are defrayed out of the relevant police authority police fund unless the tribunal decides otherwise. I want that position to continue. The Bill will have the effect of providing that an appellant police officer shall pay the whole of his or her costs unless the police appeals tribunal directs otherwise. As the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said, that is a reversal of the current position whereby the police fund meets the costs unless the Secretary of State is minded to direct otherwise.
I greatly regret the proposed reversal of the present position and the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has felt it necessary to introduce the proposal. The clear effect of the Bill's provision will be to discourage officers who have been dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank, and who have already suffered a severe financial penalty, from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. Obviously, they will be deterred because they will not know whether they will receive their costs.
Many officers will plainly be unable to afford the cost of an appeal, and that could have a serious effect on confidence in the police discipline system, which, as all hon. Members know, is vital to the way in which our police service operates. I must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend has made this proposal. To my knowledge, the


Government have not produced any evidence to show that the appeal system has been abused. If they had, we might have addressed our minds to the problem. I certainly have not seen any evidence of abuse.
The House knows only too well that police officers face an inordinate number of problems on the street. Individuals are prone to making allegations for malicious purposes. Many villains have nothing to lose by making serious allegations against police officers, and they do so.
By refusing to allow the payment of an appellant's costs, the Bill runs contrary to the spirit that has pervaded the relationship between the Home Office and the police for many years and adds to the pressures facing police officers. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a considerate colleague. He is regarded in all parts of the House as a great supporter of the police service. If he is unable to accept amendment No. 65, will he at least assure the House that costs will be awarded to an officer who wins his or her case?
In other such cases, an individual might apply for and receive legal aid. A police officer cannot apply for legal aid and will not know until a case is completed whether his or her costs have been awarded. If an officer wins, it is only fair and reasonable for costs to follow. That would at least offer some assurance to officers who are genuinely worried by this small but significant change by the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and me some assurance that will enable us to tell the Police Federation and other staff associations that the Government are mindful of the changes that the Bill will make if it is enacted.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), but I was not convinced by their arguments. I shall first address amendment No. 65 before dealing at greater length with amendment No. 67, on which my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman dwelt.
It was originally envisaged that the tribunals would provide police officers with access to external review in situations where employees have access to industrial tribunals.
No one can argue that we have not listened to the arguments of the staff associations or Opposition Members. One example of our readiness to meet possible sources of genuine concern is the fact that we have already introduced a Government amendment adding reduction in rank to the matters that may be appealed to the tribunal—a matter which, in outside employment, might be interpreted by industrial tribunals as constructive dismissal.
Amendment No 65. suggests that the review should cover a number of matters. A permanent ban on promotion is not a matter on which the Home Secretary can make regulations, so there is no need to consider rights of appeal. Fines, at whatever level, are essentially internal matters. If a large fine were to be imposed—I do not comment on whether fines will continue to be part of the pattern of police personnel arrangements—the officer could appeal to his chief constable that the amount concerned was out of all proportion to his offence. If the chief constable did not

agree, it would be fair to conclude that the officer's actions were regarded gravely by the management of his or her force and that the amount ordered was not unfair.
I do not therefore see a role for the new police appeal tribunals in internal matters; nor, as a matter of practicality, would I wish to see such an elaborate and expensive system burdened with such relatively trivial issues that would prejudice and could delay the consideration of more substantive cases.

Mr. D.N. Campbell-Savours: I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill and therefore I am not aware of all the intricate matters that were debated in Committee, but I understand that last year 1,916 complaints were made alleging incivility by police officers, many of which were made in London. I understand also that as the acts of incivility committed by police officers were not criminal offences and were not in breach of codes of practice, they will no longer be referrable to the Police Complaints Authority. Instead, they will be dealt with by the police internally. There will be no civilian oversight. Is that in the public interest? Is it true that the Bill will have that effect when enacted?

Mr. Wardle: In short, the answer to the hon. Gentleman, who has just joined us—I am glad that he has—is yes.
I move on to amendment No. 67 and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North. An appeal is justified only if there is some substantial injustice to remedy. When appellants challenge the decisions of those who are appointed to take them, it is not unreasonable to require them to have sufficient confidence in the rights of their cases to be prepared to meet their own costs. No one is suggesting that they should bear the costs of the tribunal as a whole or those of the police force.
The outlay for an appeal does not have to be substantial. The stronger the grounds of appeal, the less special skills are required to present them. Whatever the grounds, an appeal tribunal will be willing to listen to appellants if they appear by themselves or with a friend. If they choose to employ professional advice, that must be a matter for them. If an appellant has a substantial or complex legal point to argue, I think that the appeal tribunal—however that were done—would grant him or her costs. It would almost certainly do so if the case were good enough for the appellant to win.
I cannot value highly the importance of any appeal in which even the appellant has so little confidence in the likelihood of winning that he or she is unprepared to fund the costs. If that is the position, I cannot understand why the appeal should be made. There must be a degree of commitment.
The amendment would result in the appellant's costs being paid in every case where the tribunal did not direct otherwise. That means that anyone who had been dismissed, required to resign, or reduced in rank could appeal at virtually no risk of incurring any cost no matter how clear the evidence against him and irrespective of how heinous the offence for which he had been disciplined. It is obvious without me saying more that such an arrangement would have a tendency to encourage appeals. If someone has nothing to lose, why should he not lodge an appeal? That is what happens now.
In cases in which the appeal has been considered to be without merit, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has generally regarded the expectation that costs will not be given against the appellant as being so strong that it would be unreasonably harsh to make a direction as to costs. That is not to say that that will always be the position. In one recent instance the appeal tribunal advised that the appellant should be required to pay his own costs as the appeal was entirely without merit. As a result, the appellant's costs were not met by the police fund. That case serves to illustrate the point that is made in the present draft of the Bill. Two of the factors to which the tribunals should give their attention are costs and whether there is sufficient merit in the appeal to justify payment of the appellant's costs.
The present draft of the Bill deliberately reverses the current expectation that an appellant's costs will always be met. In future, the appellant will pay his or her costs unless the tribunal directs otherwise. A tribunal would make a direction in any case where the appellant won his appeal, but it might do so in cases in which it considered that the appellant had had a substantial case to argue which it was valid to bring before the tribunal.
The arrangement that we propose is not an unusual one. It is the normal practice at tribunals that appellants bear their own costs. Industrial tribunal cases are fought on the basis of the appellant's own costs, as are teachers' appeals against a barring order made by the Secretary of State for Education. That is the position in most other actions that are brought before tribunals. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
I recognise that the purpose behind amendment No. 69 is to put it beyond doubt that the fourth member of the police appeals tribunal, whom we added recently to take account of the concern that we did not have the balance completely right, should be selected from a list provided by the staff associations. The argument has already been put to me on the basis of the English provisions and the amendment refers to the Scottish forces. As I have said, while the detailed provisions have not yet been finalised, we intend to work closely with the police authorities and staff associations in drawing up the appropriate procedures and we are confident that this process will suffice to address the concerns which underlie the amendment. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that the House will recognise that the Minister failed to deal with the anomaly regarding the inspector and the constable that I put to him. In addition, he was not prepared to give the assurance sought that persons who win their appeals will receive their costs.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 23

GRANTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 15, line 40, after 'district' insert county borough'.

No. 51, in page 15, line 43, after 'district' insert county borough' .—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 30

INITIAL FINANCING OF NEW POLICE AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 17, line 40, after 'incurred' insert '(or to be incurred)' —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 38

POLICE AREAS IN WALES: ALTERATIONS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 21, line 17, leave out from 'that' to 'is' in line 20 and insert 'no county or county borough'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 46

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 23, line 43, leave out from 'force' to end of line 45.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Clause 58

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ACT

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 29, line 23, at end insert—
'(3A) In section 24 (effect of amalgamation scheme on constables engaged in service other than with their own force)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words from "either" to "transferred force" there shall be substituted the words "a person is engaged in relevant service within the meaning of section 38A of this Act";
(b) in subsection (2) for the word "overseas" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "relevant"; and
(c) in subsection (3), the words from "and the expression" onwards shall be omitted.'.

No. 35, in page 29, line 35, leave out from '(a)' to '; and' in line 38 and insert
'in subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 38A(3) of this Act".'. —[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Schedule 2

SCHEDULES TO BE INSERTED IN POLICE ACT 1964: POLICE AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 56, line 1, after 'district' insert county borough'.

No. 45, in page 56, line 18, after 'paragraphs' insert
'(and to the provisions of any order under section 3A(2) of this Act)'

No. 54, in page 57, line 39, after 'district' insert county borough'.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Schedule 4

APPLICATION TO POLICE AUTHORITIES OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 65, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
'(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A after the words "joint authority", there shall be inserted the words "or a Police Authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

No. 46, in page 70, line 41, after 'authority"' insert '(a)'.

No. 47, in page 70, line 43, at end insert and


(b) in paragraph (b) at the end there shall be added the words "or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964,".'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

Schedule 5

POLICE: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 73, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
'(2) In subsection (3A), for the words "subsection (1) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C(3) of this Act".'

No. 25, in page 75, leave out lines 3 to 17.

No. 26, in page 75, leave out lines 23 to 36 and insert—

'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971

19A. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 15, for sub-paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
(b) was engaged on service pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980, being service in respect of which section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 had effect; or
(ba) was engaged on temporary service in accordance with section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967; or".

Overseas Pensions Act 1973

19B. In section 2 of the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 (which makes provisions for superannuation schemes as respects certain overseas service), in subsection (2), for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted—
(d) a person who is—
(i) a member of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 53C(1)(a), (c) or (e) of the Police Act 1964 (service under section 15A of the Police Act 1964, under section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980), or
(ii) a constable of a police force engaged on relevant service within the meaning of section 38A(1)(a), (c) or (e) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (service under section 12A of that Act, section 1(1) of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945 or pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980),
and who is incapacitated or dies as a result of an injury sustained or disease contracted during that service;".

Police Pensions Act 1976

19C. In section 7 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (payment of pensions and contributions), in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
(b) an officer engaged on service pursuant to' an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;
(ba) a person engaged on temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(bb) a person engaged on service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose service is or was for the time being service in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have or had effect;".
19D.—(1) Section 11 of that Act (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
(a) service as an officer pursuant to an appointment under section 10 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980;

(aa) temporary service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
(ab) service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in respect of which the provisions of section 53C of the Police Act 1964 or, as the case may be, section 38A of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 have effect;".
(3) In subsection (2)(b) after the words "subsection (1)" there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),".
(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) after the words after the words "subsection (1)(a)," there shall be inserted "(aa), (ab),', and
(b) after the words "body in" there shall be inserted the words "or with".'—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]

New clause 23

PENSION ETC. OF JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVE, JUSTICES' CLERKS AND STAFF IN INNER LONDON AREA

'—(1) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] (which re-enacts certain provisions relating to the functions of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District with respect to pensions etc. of court staff) shall have effect.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision with respect to pensions, allowances or gratuities payable to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.
(3) An order under subsection (2) above may—

(a) itself make provision with respect to the pensions, allowances or gratuities which, subject to the fulfilment of such requirements and conditions as may be prescribed by the order, are to be or may be paid to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff, or
(b) provide that the civil service provisions are to have effect, with such modifications as may be prescribed by the order, in relation to the payment by such persons as may be so prescribed, out of such funds as may be so prescribed, of pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of inner London court staff, or any class of inner London court staff.


(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (2) and (3) above, an order under subsection (2)—

(a) may include all or any of the provisions referred to in paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972, and
(b) may make different provision as respects different classes of persons and different circumstances.


(5) Paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule 3 to the Superannuation Act 1972 shall have effect, in their application for the purposes of this section, as if references to regulations were references to an order under this section and references to the Secretary of State were references to the Lord Chancellor.
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (which relate to increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971) shall have effect in relation to an order under subsection (2) above as they have effect in relation to regulations under that section.
(7) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal or amend any of the relevant enactments, whether or not he makes provision under subsection (2) above.
(8) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above may make such consequential, transitional, incidental or supplemental provision (including provision amending or repealing any provision of this Act, the 1979 Act or any other enactment) as the Lord Chancellor thinks necessary or expedient.
(9) Before making an order under subsection (2) or (7) above the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

(a) the inner London magistrates' courts committee,
(b) such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned,
(c) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
(d) such representatives of other persons likely to be affected by the proposed order as appear to him to be appropriate.




(10) An order under subsection (2) or (7) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(11) In this section—
the civil service provisions" has the meaning given by section 15(1) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967,
inner London court staff' means the justices' chief executive employed by the inner London magistrates' courts committee, any justices' clerk for the inner London area and staff of the inner London magistrates' courts committee,
the inner London magistrates' courts committee" means the magistrates' courts committee for an area consisting of or including the inner London area or, if there is no such committee, every magistrates' courts committee for any area which consists of or includes any part of the inner London area, and
the relevant enactments" means—

(a) Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to this Act, and
(b) section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs) so far as it relates to the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) of that section.'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72 to 74.

Mr. Taylor: The inner London service of the magistrates is to be disengaged from the receiver of the Metropolitan police from April 1996. That move has the full support of the inner London service. These provisions are consequential upon that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

OUTER LONDON AREA

'After section 43 of the 1979 Act there shall be inserted—

Part IV Outer London area

Strategic management of outer London area

43A.—(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this section a strategic management board consisting of the following members—

(a) one member chosen from amongst themselves by the elected members from the magistrates' courts committees for the outer London Boroughs,
(b) one representative chosen by itself of the London Boroughs Association, and
(c) one representative chosen by itself of the Association of London Authorities.


(2) The chairman of the board shall be chosen from amongst themselves by its members.
(3) The board may discharge its duties through such agents and sub-committees as it may see fit to appoint, whether or not those agents or the members of those sub-committees are members of the board.
(4) It shall be the duty of the board—

(a) to keep under consideration the strategic management of the outer London area as a whole by overseeing the management of the magistrates' courts by the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area,
(b) to give advice and submit recommendations to any magistrates' courts committee within the outer London area concerning its use of resources and funds,

(c) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the use of resources and funds by each of the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area,
(d) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the allocation of grants by him to the magistrates' courts committees within the outer London area, and
(e) to submit reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the discharge of his duty under section 63(4) of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 in so far as the discharge of that duty is relevant to the outer London area.".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in clause 63, page 32, line 30, at end insert
'about the making of an order under subsection (3) above and for the purposes of receiving from such magistrates, magistrates' courts committees and interested authorities proposals for the establishment of a strategic management board for the area to which the order relates comprising one representative from each existing magistrates' courts committee within the area to which the order relates.
(5A) Where the Lord Chancellor receives proposals under subsection (5) above an order shall not be made under subsection (3) above for the area for which proposals have been received until three years has elapsed since the establishment of such a board and the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that—

(a) the criterion specified in subsection (4) above has been fulfilled, and
(b) that the making of such an order would be more likely to fulfil the criterion specified in subsection (4) above than the continued operation of the strategic management board for the area to which the order relates.


(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A) above it shall be the duty of a strategic management board—

(a) to keep under consideration the strategic management of the area to which the proposals relate by overseeing the management of the magistrates' courts by the magistrates' courts committees within that area;
(b) to give advice and to submit recommendations to any magistrates' courts committee within that area concerning its use of resources and funds;
(c) to give advice and to submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the use of resources and funds by the magistrates' courts committees within that area;
(d) to give advice and submit regular reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the allocation of grants by him to the magistrates' courts committees within that area; and
(e) to submit reports to the Lord Chancellor concerning the discharge of his duty under subsection (4) above.


(5C) A strategic management board may discharge its duties through such agents and sub-committees as it may see fit to appoint, whether or not those agents or the members of those sub-committees are members of that strategic management board.'.

Mr. Boateng: In Committee, the Minister chose to describe the magistrates and their courts, in a phrase which was as disingenuous from his lips as it was hackneyed, as the jewel in the crown of our criminal justice system. If that is the case—and we would not demur from that assessment—why do the Minister and the Government seek to replace the context of that jewel with a base metal? Why do they want, where they do not seek to cast away the jewel altogether, to replace it with a paste imitation?
When one examines the context in which we tabled the amendments and the new clause, one sees that it is designed to give the Lord Chancellor the power to ride roughshod over the needs and concerns of local justices and local communities affected by his decisions—


decisions made in Whitehall, not on the ground where justice matters and where there is a wide cross-section of society which is the consumer of legal services. People care desperately about the independence of their local magistrates courts and their clerks, and the need to present local and accountable services to local communities.
Why do the Government persist in refusing to accept the obvious fact that they have not satisfied the House and the wider community which is concerned about our deliberations that there is a need for clause 63, which our amendments and new clause would address and improve? In Committee, we asked the Minister time and time again about the rationale for the amalgamations that he and his Government propose with regard to magistrates courts committees: how had they arrived at the figure of between 50 and 60, and on what basis had it been determined that it was necessary to amalgamate the magistrates courts committees? The answer that we received was none. We were not told where the waste was; there was no quantification of the waste.
We were not given any indication at all—let alone specific examples—of where the magistrates courts committees and their justices and clerks, and the administration of them, were falling down on the job. No explanation was forthcoming as to why clause 63 was necessary, save that—this is what was said—to date, no magistrates courts had come forward of their own volition with any proposals for the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees, and that that must mean that there is a need for reform and a change in the law. That does not follow.
The Minister has not satisfied the Committee, the House, the profession and local communities about the rationale for Government policy in this area, save one matter that is clear to all: the propelling influence behind all that the Minister does which subordinates the interests of justice and the interests of local communities. The one propelling concern is not that of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chief Justice, the justices themselves, their clerks and the local communities but that of the Treasury.
The Minister can search among his notes for an example, as he will tonight. We wait to see whether any missive is passed down to someone who might do the Minister a service in order to establish an example—all we want is one example—of some waste, some inefficiency, or something which needs to be addressed by this draconian power. I cannot say that we will be satisfied, but at least we will have a response.

Mr. Michael Stephen: The hon. Gentleman will recall that a contrast was drawn in Committee between the small number of police authorities, through which efficient and effective police service is delivered, and the relatively extremely large number of magistrates courts areas. The implied question was why we needed so many magistrates courts areas. Would the hon. Gentleman care to explain why we need so many?

Mr. Boateng: It should not have escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that there is a distinction to be made between police officers and justices of the peace. They have complementary but different roles. The onus is not on the Opposition to

explain why there should be the same number of magistrates courts committees now as has been the case: it is on the Government to justify the measure that they have introduced. The hon. Gentleman should be more diligent in asking the Minister to explain the basis on which the decision to bring about the amalgamations has been made. The Minister has been asked time and time again. Apart from saying, "Well, they have not brought forward any proposals themselves," he has given us no response.
We had the argument in Committee and there is no point in rehearsing it here. By force of numbers, we lost. So we went away and reflected and we have come up with another proposal on Report. It is a modest proposal. It is far too modest for the taste of many of us, but we hope that if we make modest proposals there will be more chance of their being accepted by an all-too-modest Minister. That was our hope. We shall see what his response is.
We propose in new clause 10 and amendment No. 6 that the Lord Chancellor should be required, before he imposes an, amalgamation, to allow the magistrates courts committees and the justices of the peace to make their own proposals. I cannot believe that there are many supporters among Conservative Members for imposed amalgamations of magistrates courts committees, because Conservative Members recognise—the hon. Member for Shoreham may be an exception—that there is strong local feeling about the committees. People feel that justices of the peace do rather a good job and have strong local ties. We are saying that the Government should give those justices of the peace, magistrates courts committees and the justices' clerks for whom they are responsible a chance to make their own proposals.
The Government should provide an opportunity to see whether the strategic management boards that we propose in the new clause and amendment, work and deliver the goods. Give them a chance. Give them three years. If they do not bring about the necessary changes where changes are necessary in terms of practice or economies of scale that might be possible through amalgamation of specific magistrates courts committees, other proposals could be considered. It is possible to see how the sharing of computer and other facilities might bring positive advantages to the consumer, and we are all for that. If the strategic management boards are capable of delivering the goods, there will be no need to enforce the amalgamation.

Mr. Stephen: May I renew the challenge that I made to the hon. Gentleman in Committee? Will he commit any future Labour Lord Chancellor, in the unlikely event that he and his hon. Friends ever again formed the Government and if the clause had been accepted without amendment, to repeal the clause and leave a Labour Lord Chancellor powerless to order any amalgamations if no voluntary proposals had been made by magistrates?

Mr. Boateng: My response to that challenge is that no one should be under any illusion about the fact that an incoming Labour Government will carry out a root-and-branch reform of the Lord Chancellor's Department with a view to replacing it with a Minister of Justice and altering fundamentally the role of the Lord Chancellor. Let me make that absolutely clear. That is my response to the hon. Member for Shoreham and I do not intend to give way to him again. Let our policy be understood once and for all. He must understand—

Mr. John Greenway: The rabbit is out of the hat.

Mr. Boateng: The rabbit was let out of the hat in Committee. In fact, it was not even confined to a hat. The rabbit has been running amok for many years. That reform is part and parcel of our policy and, make no bones about it, we intend to implement it. When we do, we will have debates in the House in which the person responsible for legislation will answer questions from the few Conservative Members who will be left on the Opposition Benches. We will be only too happy to do something that the Lord Chancellor currently does not do—answer to this House, under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we do not have the Lord Chancellor, we have got his valet and I will deal with him tonight.
We want to know from the Minister the basis upon which these propositions are brought forward. We want to know the basis upon which he opposes our modest proposal, which does no more than provide a statutory basis for what already exists in outer London. It proposes that the draconian powers that the Lord Chancellor seeks to draw unto himself in relation to the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees should be frozen until such time as it has been established that that which works in outer London, is seen to work and is seen to have the support of the Lord Chancellor's Department, is given an equal opportunity to work elsewhere in the jurisdiction.
Why should those magistrates courts committees in the constituencies of Conservative Members and of my hon. Friends face forced amalgamation without the opportunity to come forward with the same proposals as their outer London colleagues enjoy?
The Government have done that for outer London, so they can do it for the rest of the country and put it on a statutory basis. It is on that basis that we press our modest proposals. We wait, if not with bated breath, for a response from the Minister.

Mr. John M. Taylor: On behalf of the Lord Chancellor, my hon. Friends and valets everywhere, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
First, I must sound a salutary note to the House, one which we cannot escape or deny. When the now famous Le Vay scrutiny of the magistrates service reported in 1989, I am afraid that it said this of the service:
There is no coherent management structure for the service. It is impossible to locate clear management responsibility or accountability anywhere in the structure.
I am talking about the administrative side of the service, not about the judicial side—the extremely valuable role that magistrates play in our judicial system.
That lack of management, accountability and control is not a matter of no consequence; it is a matter of £350 million of taxpayers' money per annum. If anything goes wrong with that expenditure, or if it is thought not to be used wisely, there is no point in my getting up in this House or the Lord Chancellor getting up in another place to say, "I am sorry, but we have got no powers over this money. All we do is write out a cheque. We cannot cope with it if anything goes wrong." That is patently entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give one example of something that has gone wrong? Will he identify one instance—

Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Boateng: Good. Will he identify one instance of the misappropriation or the misplacing of funds by a magistrates courts committee or its justices' clerk?

Mr. Taylor: I am very careful of the sub judice rules, and I have duties of care when matters are not concluded. I had better write to the hon. Gentleman, when I will tell him the jurisdiction and what we think.

Mr. Graham Allen: Put it on the record.

Mr. Taylor: No, I shall not put it on the record now. There are times when it is imprudent to do so. I am describing the example, but I will not specify it. I give my word as a Member of this honourable House that I am aware of such a case, and I ask the House to take my word for it.

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend is suggesting that, because £350 million of taxpayers' money is at stake, we must have something called a coherent management structure. Some of us might be a bit sceptical about the benefits of introducing coherent management structures. Is it not the case that, through the cash limits exercised through his Department, my hon. Friend has absolute control over that expenditure? He does not need to amalgamate committees or have major reforms to impose strict financial discipline over the whole structure at present.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the formula—which, incidentally, is under review. But we are talking about accountability in the service for the administrative functions, as distinct from the judicial functions. At the moment, there is none. We need line management from the magistrates courts committees, which are the ultimate authority in the matter, through the justices' chief executive to the rest of staff on administrative matters. I shall not yield on that. It is clearly necessary, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are impotent to answer to the House on any criticisms of those areas.

Mr. Maclennan: The difficulty which some of us have had in accepting what the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor say is that they are drawing a distinction between the administrative function of the Lord Chancellor and the judicial function as though that were quite simply and easily done, and saying that by making changes in the administrative structure, one does not impinge upon the judicial function. That is plainly not true, and it is not a defensible distinction in those terms.

Mr. Taylor: I invite the hon. Gentleman to revisit clause 72, where the areas which are legally protected as independent are clearly set out. We shall come to those on a later amendment. The £350 million will not go away, and there is an accountability to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee. [Interruption.] The silent ones have asked me to move on, and it may be for the convenience of House if I do. [Laughter.] I know who is in charge around here.
In the context of outer London, I want to tell the House about a letter which was received from Mr. Graham Chamberlain, the chairman of the outer London magistrates courts action group. A consultation was set up between the Department and the outer London group to achieve an outer London solution. The letter, sent in the middle of May, said:
Dear Lord Chancellor, I am delighted to confirm to you personally that the Outer London Magistrates Courts Service has been unanimous in our acceptance of the proposals you sent to us at the beginning of May. Not only did the 20 MCCs accept, but also the 20 Justices' Clerks, the Greater London Association of Magisterial Officers, supported by AMO, nationally"—
and he might have included the local authority associations as well. The letter continued:
Finally, may I thank you my Lord Chancellor for your patience and understanding during the past eight months. Your faith, which we shared, that we could achieve a mutual agreed solution, has been rewarded.
That is the position in outer London. The system is non-statutory, and that is its virtue. It is flexible and capable of review, and all sides wish to look at it in the context of review.
To try to transmit the system to the provinces beyond outer London is frankly barmy. If there was to be a strategic management body, there would have to be one representative from each magistrates courts committee on it. If two provincial magistrates courts committee areas wished to come together, the amendment would force them to have a strategic management board with two members—one from each area. It is mad, and I do not know who drew the plan up.

Mr. Maclennan: The House is impatient to conclude the debate, but I am conscious that when amalgamations start to roll individual hon. Members will be the first to cry out—and as many Members on the Government Benches as on the Opposition Benches will be raising objections about the use of the powers that the Lord Chancellor is taking.
The Minister places great reliance on what happened in outer London. That is how he should proceed if he wishes to bring about change—using existing powers. If changes are self-evidently needed, the Minister does not need draconian powers to force them through against the wishes of magistrates' authorities. He said that there had been no amalgamations during the present Lord Chancellor's tenure or even some time before that.

Mr. John M. Taylor: There have been no voluntary amalgamations in the 45 years since the powers were brought in.

Mr. Maclennan: I am not aware either that there has been any great pressure from the present Lord Chancellor or his Conservative predecessors to bring about amalgamations. That certainly has not been ventilated in this Chamber as a matter of high importance in the past. Had there been such a debate, we might have listened with much greater sympathy to arguments in favour of the draconian and unaccountable powers that the Lord Chancellor seeks to take upon himself.
The truth is that the noble and learned Lord and his office are a singular anomaly. He presides over a judicial system as the senior judge of the realm, and sits in the Cabinet as a political figure whose shots are called in many cases by the Treasury. We all know that the driving force

behind the provision that the amendment seeks to alter is economy—it has nothing to do with the fair discharge of justice by magistrates. I am fond of the Lord Chancellor—he is a splendid man, but he came to politics having cut his teeth on other jobs, and he is finding it exceedingly difficult to deal with pressure from his Treasury colleagues. That is why we are faced with this abusive measure.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted. The Government would have done well to withdraw their proposals, so as not to need to bother with compromises of the kind ingeniously invented by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). In the absence of Government willingness to think again, the amendment should certainly have our support.

Sir Roger Moate: I speak more to expose the dilemma in which I and, I suspect, other hon. Members find ourselves than to offer a solution. My hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am totally sceptical about the Government's proposals, but I do not believe that the Opposition's solution of more strategic boards is attractive.
Perhaps some of us are to blame for the fact that we do not have before us proposals which would allow us to secure greater control for the House over undesirable streamlining of the voluntary system of local justice. I am sceptical about enforced amalgamations because they progressively undermine the precious concept of local justice. The smaller the courts and court committees, and the more local the magistrates, the better that system of justice works.
I fear that compulsory amalgamations will inevitably lead to compulsory closure of a large number of magistrates courts throughout the country. Anyone who has doubts about that should reflect on the words of my hon. Friend the Minister who spoke of the system of management which flows directly from the Lord Chancellor and controls the money right through the committees and down to the courts. Ultimately that power of management will bring pressure to close a large number of local magistrates courts. That is what it is about.
9.45 pm
The Government have been quite clear: there will be many amalgamations. We in Kent have nothing to fear because, according to the map that I have seen, there is no proposition to disturb the magistrates court committee in my county. Kent is a large county with a large committee. We have already seen the power that the Department and the Treasury have brought to bear on those committees by way of cash limitations, and that has resulted in the closure of local magistrates courts.
When there was a proposal for such a closure in my constituency there was no support from anywhere to resist it. That was a highly efficient small court doing a first-class job, but the power of money led to its closure. In many constituencies the consequence of what we are debating will be the closure of local courts. On the ground of efficiency one could probably just about justify that, but in the interests of justice I do not think that it can be justified. I say "just about" because I do not believe that we are really talking about large sums. The Minister cited a figure of £350 million, but 95 per cent. of cases which come to


court are dealt with by the unpaid magistracy. I suspect that that is the best bargain justice anywhere in the world. We get tremendous value for that £350 million.
When challenged, the Minister did not produce examples of wastage. Perhaps, quite rightly and circumspectly, he did not want to refer to individual cases, but if there were wholesale wastage he would have been able to tell us about it. I do not think that there is such waste. Therefore, forcing amalgamations and, ultimately, forcing the closure of local courthouses will not bring enormous economic gain to the country.

Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we live in a world in which the resources available for the administration of justice are unlimited and that there may never be a strong argument for the amalgamation of magistrates courts in the national interest and over which the Lord Chancellor needs statutory power?

Sir Roger Moate: There is no evidence to suggest that that is necessary. If there is evidence of wastage and inefficiency and proof that we need such statutory powers, let us hear it. It is easy to develop theories about management, but the taking of powers should be justified and I have not seen any justification. When a court closure is proposed in my hon. Friend's constituency he might say, "I protest, I want to prevent this."

Mr. Stephen: We should always look at the national interest.

Sir Roger Moate: I suggest that my hon. Friend would have a legitimate local interest and would go to the rather large regional committee which is quite remote from his area. But he will be told, "I am sorry but we have cash limits imposed by our new, highly efficient chief executive who is operating the cash limits imposed by the Treasury."
I do not say that that is necessarily wrong, but I wish that the House could have the power to resist that trend and to help my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when they experience the undesirable closure of courthouses. It has started and it will continue. The Government are seeking to take a further power to undermine the sort of local justice which means a great deal to hon. Members and to local magistrates who serve unpaid and do sterling work.
I fear what we are doing: I think that we have got it wrong and I hope that there will be future opportunities to try to redress that. I do not think that the Opposition amendment helps us particularly in that respect, burl hope that we shall be able to find other opportunities in future to try to correct this error.

Mr. Boateng: There was nothing in the world to stop the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) from tabling his own amendments if he was so dissatisfied with ours. Perhaps the fact that he did not is an indication of his interest in these matters, but I am disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to consider his amendments.
I hope that the last two speeches had a soporific and desensitising effect on the Minister, who was becoming a little carried away earlier, and that he will answer the case that we have put in a rational way. What aspect of the current proposals for outer London involving a strategic management board makes such arrangements unsuitable

for the rest of the country? They would deal with the two critical issues with which the Le Vay report was concerned—greater efficiency and better management.
The Lord Chancellor now has the power to ensure that the inspectorate is brought to bear on improving efficiency. He has the power to control the budget of the magistrates courts committee, to demand management information statistics and to call for reports on a whole range of issues. What further power does he seek? Why does he seek it? We still have not had answers to those questions.
We are not satisfied with the Minister's response. He throws up his hands in shock and horror, but he should not be surprised that we are not satisfied: that is one thing which ought not to surprise someone of his experience. He knows how things work. Oppositions tend not to be satisfied by Ministers' responses, and in this instance we have every reason not to be satisfied. The Minister's objections to these modest amendments are bunkum, and he knows it. We want to hear more, but in the interests of he House we shall not push the matter to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 72, new schedule—Continuing Functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in Relation to Pensions etc. of Court Staff—

1. In this Schedule—
court staff' has the same meaning as in section 59 of the 1979 Act,
the inner London magistrates' courts committee" has the same meaning as in section [Pensions etc. of justices' chief executive, justices' clerks and staff in inner London area] of this Act,
the Receiver" means the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and
responsible authority" has the same meaning as in section 55 of the 1979 Act.
2. The Receiver shall pay out of the metropolitan police fund any superannuation benefits payable in respect of justices' clerks and other officers employed by the committee of magistrates or the inner London magistrates' courts committee under any enactment or instrument applied to those clerks or other officers by regulations having effect in accordance with section 15(9) of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, other than benefits payable by the London Residuary Body, and any superannuation contributions and other payments for which the inner London magistrates' courts committee may be liable as their employer under any such enactment or instrument.
3. Nothing in paragraph 2 above shall require the Receiver to incur any expenditure or make any payment which would cause the net cost to him in any year of the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 below to exceed the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 5(b) below.
4. The Lord Chancellor may out of money provided by Parliament pay to the Receiver grants towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year—

(a) of the Receiver's functions under paragraph 2 above, and
(b) of the Receiver's functions corresponding to those of responsible authorities under regulations made, or having effect as if made, under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 with respect to court staff.


5. The amount of any grant under paragraph 4 above towards the net cost to the Receiver in any year of the matters mentioned in that paragraph shall not exceed 80 per cent of whichever of the following is the less, namely—

(a) that net cost, and
(b) the amount which, in relation to that year, is for the time being determined for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor.


6. In subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 59 of the 1979 Act (grants by Lord Chancellor to responsible authorities)—



(a) references to that section include references to this Schedule, and
(b) references to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of that section include references to the matters mentioned in paragraph 4 above.'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 63

ALTERATION OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS COMMITTEE AREAS

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 33, line 27, at end insert—
'(bb) a county borough council,'.

No. 78, in page 33, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of -unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Clause 72

INDEPENDENCE OF JUSTICES' CLERK AND STAFF IN RELATION TO LEGAL FUNCTIONS

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 39, line 42, after 'peace', insert 'or'.
We will be dividing the House on this amendment very shortly. It goes to the heart of our debates, dealing with a question that remains unaddressed by the Government—the independence of the judiciary, and the basis on which justices' clerks will be able and required to carry out their functions. Those functions, which lie at the heart of our justice system, are threatened by the Government's failure to produce an adequate safeguard for their independence.
The amendment seeks to make it clear in statute that there must be a guarantee of independence in relation to the three separate and important functions that a justices' clerk is called on to perform—the discharge of statutory duties, the giving of advice to the magistracy and the handling of individual cases. Those three essential elements must be protected. They were identified by the Lord Chief Justice and by a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Ackner, in the other place.
Those elements are threatened by a Government who, while introducing legislation that superimposes the powers of the Treasury on those of justices and their clerks, subordinate the interests of justice to those of the market and a Treasury determined to claw back the deficit created by the Government. As it stands, the legislation fails to preserve the necessary independence. There is nothing more important than that, and we shall return to the matter on Third Reading. There is nothing more important than the independence of the judiciary, and the independence of the justices' clerks in the context of the administration of justice.
We are not satisfied with the clause as it stands, we seek to strengthen it, and we shall divide the House in order to do so.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The amendment is interesting; it is called "or". The Opposition desire to put into clause 72, between the word "peace" and the word "in", the simple word "or". The very essence is or. The amendment sounds innocuous—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has not grasped it."] Yes, I have grasped it. It sounds innocuous, but I realise that it is not as disingenuous or innocent as it appears; actually, it is rather sinister.
Clause 72 deals with the independence of the justices' clerks and staff in relation to legal functions. As drafted, it specifies two important areas in which the justices' clerks are protected in the independence of their legal function. One, set out in subsection (2), consists of a catalogue of functions deriving from the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. I shall not weary the House with that catalogue.
The other area of work in which the justices' clerks enjoy independence in their legal functions is in
giving advice to justices of the peace in an individual case".
If the word "or" were inserted the provision would read:
When exercising the functions specified in subsection (2) below or giving advice to justices of the peace or in an individual case".
We should then have made an extra category that is legally independent, and in which nothing can be said. The justices' clerk would have an inviolate aura round him and could not be instructed in any way.
In other words, we should have given legal independence and the ability to be clear of any instruction, in matters concerning the use of the car park—that is, legal independence concerning the use of the car park, and concerning security and accommodation arrangements, the stocking of the library and the location of the waste paper basket.
The amendment is misguided and, with its single word "or", it is a wrecking amendment. I reject it.

Mr. Boateng: The location of the waste paper basket is one thing that the Minister should know, because that is where he should put his whole rotten Bill. Upon that basis, and upon the basis of his woefully inadequate grasp of the amendment, we shall divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 291.

Division No. 285]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene
Church, Judith


Ainger, Nick
Clapham, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Coffey, Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Ms Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beggs, Roy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foulkes, George





Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godsiff, Roger
Milburn, Alan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Andrew


Gordon, Mildred
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooney, Terry


Jowell, Tessa
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Simpson, Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Straw, Jack


McFall, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Timms, Stephen


Maclennan, Robert
Tipping, Paddy


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Tyler, Paul


McWilliam, John
Vaz, Keith


Madden, Max
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mahon, Alice
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mandelson, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Marek, Dr John
Watson, Mike


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wigley, Dafydd






Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Elletson, Harold


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Booth, Hartley
Fry, Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)





Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Viggers, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Willetts, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 76

ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 44, line 14, at end insert—
'(bb) a county borough council,'.

No. 80, in page 44, line 17, at end insert—
'(11) Until 1st April 1996, the definition of "unitary authority" in subsection (10) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (bb).'—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 7

MAGISTRATES' COURTS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 86, line 20, at end insert—

'Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967

24A. In section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (superannuation of metropolitan civil staffs), in subsection (1)(a)(ii), for the words from "or other officer" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words ", as a justices' chief executive for that area or as staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area".

Pensions (Increase) Act 1971

24B. In Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (list of official pensions for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 47, at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be added the words—
or as staff of such a committee; or
(c) service as a justices' chief executive.
24C. In Schedule 6 to that Act (employments relevant to section 13(2) of that Act), in paragraph (d) after the words "for that area" there shall be inserted the words "or by any magistrates' courts committee whose area includes all or part of that area".'

No. 74, in page 87, line 47, at end insert—

'Local Government Finance Act 1992

32. In section 46 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (special items for purposes of section 45), in subsection (2)(d) for the words from "the magistrates' courts" to "that area" there shall be substituted the words "the probation service in the inner London area or the functions referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule [Continuing functions of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District in relation to pensions etc. of court staff] to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994".'—[Mr. Howard.]

Clause 87

COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 49, leave out lines— 7 to 11 and insert—
'(3) The following provisions of this Act—

(a) section 3 and Schedule 2, so far as they relate to

(i) the power to make orders under the section inserted by section 3, or
(ii) the power to make regulations under paragraph 11 of the Schedule entitled Schedule IC set out in Schedule 2,



(b) sections [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc.] and [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations etc. (Scotland).],
(c) sections [Police officers engaged on service outside their force] and [Constables engaged on service outside their force], subsections (3A) and (6)(a) of section 58, and paragraphs 19A to 19D of Schedule 5, so far as they relate to service in accordance with arrangements made under section 15A(2) of the Police Act 1964 or section 12A(2) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and
(d) section 41, so far as it relates to paragraphs 19A to 19D of Schedule 5,

shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'

No. 39, in page 49, line 22, after '1964' insert '("the new police authorities")'.

No. 40, in page 49, line 23, after 'supersede' insert '("the old police authorities")'.

No. 41, in page 49, line 23, after 'them' insert
', for the performance by the old police authorities, before the new police authorities come into existence, of functions prescribed by the order'.

No. 42, in page 49, line 25, leave out from 'application' to end of line 26 and insert
'in relation to them of provisions of this or any other Act or of any instrument);'.

No. 38, in page 49, line 27, leave out 'of property' and insert
'and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of'.

No. 75, in page 49, leave out line 38 and insert—
'(a) for the transfer and apportionment of property, and for the transfer, apportionment and creation of rights and liabilities;'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 88, line 20, at end insert—

'9 & 10 Geo. c. 17.
The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.
Section 2(1), (1A) and (2). Section 3(1) and (2).'

No. 28, in page 89, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 43(1) to (3). In section 43(5) the words "and "police regulations" " onwards.'

No. 29, in page 89, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 9, the entry relating to The Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'

No. 36, in page 89, line 49, column 3 at end insert—
'In section 24(3) the words from "and the expression" onwards.'.

No. 37, in page 89, line 56, column 3 at end insert—
'Section 38(1) to (3). In section 38(5), the words from ""police regulations""onwards.'

No. 30, in page 90, line 7, column 3, at end insert—


'In Schedule 4, the entry relating to the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945.'

No. 31, in page 90, column 3, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert—

'Section 2.'

No. 32, in page 90, line 38, at end insert—

'1976 c. 35.
The Police Pensions Act 1976.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, in paragraph 5 the words "43(1) and" and in paragraph 6 the words from "1948" to "in both".'

No. 33, in page 90, column 3, leave out line 42 and insert—

'Section 11.'

No. 55, in page 93, line 43, at end insert—

'1994 c. 00.
The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
Section 24.'

No. 76, in page 94, line 4, column 3, leave out 'and 4' and insert 4, 7 and 1 l' —[Mr. Howard.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to the debate. We know that he has been heavily preoccupied. We know that there have been many demands on his time. We know, in particular, that he has been obliged to spend many hours redrafting his policy document on tackling crime because his party's policy makers thought it inadequate. According to the Independent on Sunday, the Labour party's Equality Commission has asked for extra paragraphs to be inserted into the hon. Gentleman's document on crime prevention and racism. It also stressed:
It is essential to make the point that crime does not only affect the poor but all sections of the community.
There we have it. The Labour party's spokesman on home affairs has to be told by his party's Equality Commission that crime affects all sections of the community. It is little wonder, then, that his party's opposition to the Bill, as to all our reforms, has been so utterly muddled.
The Bill's central objective is to strengthen the police in their fight against crime. It will lay the foundations for a police service that can enter the 21st century confident that it will remain the finest in the world. The Bill will provide for a service with improved organisation and effectiveness and one that is more accountable to the community that it serves. It will ensure that the 16,000 extra police officers and 16,000 extra civilians recruited to the service since the Government took office can be mobilised to the maximum possible effect. Above all, it will ensure that we get the best value for money for the £6 billion that taxpayers spend every year on the police service.
The attitude of the Labour party has been to seek to frustrate those objectives at every turn. Labour has not expressed an ounce of regret for its appalling history. In 1979, the police service was hopelessly undermanned, badly paid and on the verge of a strike. Labour local authorities and some Labour Members queued up to undermine the police at every turn, not least during the

miners' strike, and have shown bitter hostility to every measure that we have taken since 1979 in the fight against crime. So much for Labour being tough on crime.
The Labour party, we are told, has finally seen the light—another general election, another defeat, another Opposition spokesman and a new policy. Let us take the hon. Member for Sedgefield at his word for a moment. Let us assume that he means what he says. He has been his party's home affairs spokesman for more than two years. Last month, he delivered the annual Police Foundation lecture—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Home Secretary has given us enough preamble; he should now return to Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Howard: The points that I am about to make are directly related to the Bill.
The thoughts that the hon. Member for Sedgefield uttered on that occasion are directly relevant to the attitude that the Labour party has taken to the Bill. He informed us:
self respect can only come through respect for others.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us what clause the Home Secretary is addressing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a point of order out of the back pocket: it meant nothing.

Mr. Howard: The Bill deals with the objectives that are to be set for the police, and these matters are highly and directly relevant to those objectives.
Most of us learned what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said the other day when we were in short trousers. The same applies to other things that he has said. For instance, he told us:
the police are part of the community and they must work closely with the community to deal with crime.
I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with that. Next, he delved into a bit more detail:
We need a Police Service that is close to the public, but has at its disposal the latest in modern technology.
I do not suppose that one hon. Member disagrees with any of those remarks.
As the hon. Member for Sedgefield delivers these banalities, he contrives to give the impression not only that he has discovered the ten commandments but that he personally received them from the Almighty. It is as though no one had spoken of community before him, no one had recognised the need for tough action on crime before he pretended to do so, and no one had called for partnership between the police and the public—which this Bill is all about—before he did.
The hon. Gentleman has even suggested:
the right has disregarded the importance of creating a society of opportunity.
Where has he been for the past 15 years? Can he so totally have forgotten the part that he played in attempting to thwart the opportunities that the right has created?
During his first general election, the hon. Gentleman supported the abolition of the opportunity for council tenants to buy their own homes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are setting a great example of law and order in the House tonight. The Secretary of State must return to Third Reading. I have already drawn his attention to the need to do so; I do not want to have to do so again.

Mr. Howard: I entirely understand why the Opposition are so sensitive about their history and about the history of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. I am—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not sensitive: I am concerned about the debate. Once again, I tell the Secretary of State that he must confine his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I am directing my remarks to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not suggest that you are sensitive, but—[Interuption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to know whether the Secretary of State is in order when there is so much noise in the Chamber.

Mr. Howard: I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall hear much more about the sensitivity of the Opposition to their history, and especially to the history of the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The truth is that they have nothing to offer, on policing or anything else. It is the Government who are tackling the real problems.
At present, the police service suffers, first, because there are too many detailed Home Office controls on their operations-controls on police numbers, controls on local capital projects and controls on allocations of budgets. The Bill will sweep away those controls.
Secondly, local communities do not have enough input into local policing priorities. The Bill will put that right. Local policing plans will be drawn up by the police authority in consultation with the chief constable. There will be a duty to consult local communities before that is done. The new plans will give local police commanders a clear focus for their efforts and the freedom to use their budgets to achieve their objectives.
Thirdly, there is a need to strengthen the accountability of local police forces to their local communities. The Bill will achieve that accountability. It is because I want to see greater accountability that the Bill will create strengthened police authorities, not just committees of the council but strong, free-standing organisations. Independent members—independent of the council and of the Home Secretary—will greatly add to the range of experience of the new authorities. As they will be local people, they will ensure, together with elected members, that local concerns are at the forefront of the authorities' workings.
If accountability is to operate, local communities will need to have some sense of how well their police authority and service are doing. Local priorities, important though they are, cannot provide a complete picture. Without national objectives, how can one force ever be compared with another? If that comparison cannot be made, how can local communities have a full sense of how effectively the local fight against crime is going? In time, national objectives will be an invaluable way of driving up standards throughout the police service to the level of the best.
If we are to reform any great public service—whether it is the police, the national health service or any other service—objectives need to be set for that service and there needs to be proper public accountability for the achievement of those objectives. The so-called Labour modernisers are apparently content, as we have seen during the passage of the Bill, for the producers of public services to monitor themselves, with no right for the public to be informed. The hon. Member for Sedgefield would not

reform public services to make them better. He would merely say to those responsible for delivering those services, "Set your own targets, measure your own performance and don't bother to publish the results."
That is why the Opposition have no time for the practical reforms that are contained in the Bill. For all its talk of modernisation, the Labour party remains firmly stuck in the past. It attacks our proposals for police authorities but has no clear view of its own. It used to favour directly elected authorities, but now it says that it does not.
Does it favour strengthening the work of police authorities by giving them independent status? It cannot or will not say. Does it object to our proposals for national objectives for the police service, increasing detection rates for burglaries, maintaining or if possible improving detection rates for violent crimes, targeting crimes that are a particular problem locally, providing high visibility policing and responding promptly to emergency calls from the public? To which of these objectives do the Opposition object? Which objective does the Labour party find offensive? Which objective undermines good policing practice? The truth is that the Labour party has no answers. It offers only destructive opposition.
The Bill will strengthen the links between the public and the police. It will free the hands of police commanders and it will powerfully assist the police in the fight against crime. It is an important measure which needs to be passed, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Blair: This Bill has occupied many days of debate in Committee and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to the officials of the House for their hard work.
The Bill was savaged in the other place, it came back to us and it still has absolutely no support anywhere outside the Conservative party. It is not supported by the police, the magistrates or independent commentators.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No, I am sorry.
What is more, not only does the Bill fail to do what the Home Office and the Home Secretary have said, but it takes policing in the opposite direction to that in which we wish it to go. If the Home Secretary wants local community policing: the measures in the Bill do not simply fail to support that local community policing: they actually undermine it.
The Bill undermines local community policing in three ways. First, the composition of police authorities is to be changed so that central Government end up appointing key members of police authorities. That is a centralising measure. It has no support. It does not even have the support of many Conservative councillors—or at least the few who remain in local government.
Secondly, not only does the Bill centralise the authority and the composition of its members, but when the Home Secretary refers to the national objectives that he is going to set, the objection is not to setting objectives, but to him setting them rather than local people. The difference between the two of us is that, while the Home Secretary wants objectives to be set centrally by central Government, the police, the Opposition and virtually everyone else believe that they should be set by local people.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No, I am not going to give way.
Thirdly, not only does the Bill centralise the composition of the police authorities and ensure that the objectives are to be taken over and set by the Secretary of State even when they are in conflict with local objectives, but it provides for a wholly new mechanism of amalgamating police authorities. Conservative Members should think very carefully before supporting a Bill which includes those provisions.
In virtually every other situation, and certainly in the law until now, where there has been an amalgamation of a police authority, it has been subjected to a proper public inquiry. The proposals will allow the wholesale amalgamation of police authorities without any element of public inquiry. While even minor property developments are to be subjected to a public inquiry in which views can be put, something as central to local communities as the status of their police authorities will be removed from the public inquiry process altogether. That is a centralising measure.
There were debates in Committee about the nature of amalgamations. Ministers tried to pretend that nothing was further from their minds than such a notion. In fact, the gloss to the provisions was given in a recent Conservative research department briefing.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: No, I will not give way, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
That research briefing stated that—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen to this as I am referring to a briefing from their own research department. The briefing states:
There are no current plans to amalgamate police forces. Amalgamations will only happen when the time is right.
Many people in the police service and elsewhere believe that the time will be right when the Bill and its problems are out of the way. There will then be a wholesale amalgamation of the smaller police services. That will remove local policing further from local people when there is no evidence that it will create a more effective police service.
Not merely is policing to be centralised; the magistrates courts are to be centralised as well. Time and time again in Committee, the case was made against the wholesale amalgamation of magistrates courts areas, yet that is precisely what will happen in the Bill.
The Bill, which is a centralising measure opposed by everyone other than the Conservative party, is a wasted opportunity. When the previous settlements were formed in the Police Act 1964, it was preceded by a royal commission. It was discussed, debated and properly consulted on. Where amalgamations occurred, they occurred as a result of public agreement. This Bill has had no such commission and no such prior consultation. The representations that were made have been entirely ignored. Not one authoritative body consulted on these measures has agreed to them. In fact, the authoritative bodies disagree with them, yet they will go through.
Only today, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers said that the review of the police core functions—which is an integral part of the Bill—could
end with us being forced to withdraw from the vital social services role which the public tell us they value so much.

If modern policing is about partnership, shared responsibility and local people having control over local services, the Bill runs against every aspect of local democracy which it is possible to contemplate. When we need that local partnership more than ever, the Bill will not improve the fight against crime. It will undermine the fight against crime. That is not the view simply of Labour Members; it is the view of the police as well.
Why could not the money that is to be wasted on this—the millions of pounds to be spent—be better spent on crime prevention measures locally? Why could it not be better spent on a drugs education programme for young people? Why could it not be better spent in the fight against crime?
The Bill is a measure of dogma. It is not supported by the people of this country, and it is not supported by those who admire our public services and our police. It has no support anywhere and should be rejected by the House.

Mr. Miller: It was fascinating to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. Labour Members recognise that the role of the police and magistrates in our society is under attack as a result of the measures incorporated in the Bill. Both the police and magistrates hold a special place in our society, and it is with great regret that I share the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about the dogma incorporated in these measures.
In all our proceedings, no progress has been made on flushing out what is clearly behind the Government's statements about the number of police forces which were launched by the previous Secretary of State, now Chancellor of the Exchequer. No one has denied that his office was responsible for floating the number of police forces and suggesting that we would have only half the present number. The previous Secretary of State's sticky fingers were on that, as they were on a number of other aspects of the proceedings. It is clear that he is still having an influence on what is going on.
In an earlier debate under the heading of local partnerships to promote crime prevention, great opportunities were missed. The Government failed to recognise the importance of police officers serving in our communities, working towards education and helping with crime prevention measures. When the Government failed to recognise the importance of our amendments relating to local partnership, they missed an ideal opportunity to raise the status of police officers working in such fields.
The rejection of those important amendments will make it more difficult for police officers in such categories of work to have their important activities recognised by the police authorities which they serve. There is no doubt that officers who work in exercises such as the one that took place a few weeks ago in my constituency under the general heading "Kidsafe" play a vital role in our society. It is important that the service of such officers is recognised. The Government's approach will undermine that.
We have dealt with matters relating to private security. The Minister referred to cowboys in the industry—a recognition that there are some cowboys in the industry. How on earth does the Minister expect to regulate cowboys


without introducing some proper regulation? If they are not members of proper organisations, how can he expect to control them?
The Minister said that access to criminal records for vetting purposes for employment was being reviewed. It is interesting that that is under review, yet local authorities have recently been told that they will not have access to such information when employing people to become engaged in activities in which young people are involved. There seems to be a certain amount of double standard in that. The review is under way, yet changes have already taken place and at the same time the Government put up a stone wall on private security licensing.
There is no question about the importance of local justices as the proper vehicle for summary justice in our society. The Home Secretary gloats over the comments about outer London, yet he failed to comment on the closures of local courts that have been forced on magistrates committees by the failure of his Department properly to fund some areas within our community. I referred to one such area in Committee. We have had no answer from the Government.
The Home Secretary has not referred to the pressures that currently impinge on our society to close local court offices. A public consultation is being held in my area on that matter at this very moment. There was no mention of that or of the important public service that the local court offices provide.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the Lord Chancellor has all the powers he needs in terms of financial control. My goodness, he can exercise them now, let alone with the powers that would be vested in him by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is not in his place just now. He let the cat out of the bag because he referred to a map. It is interesting that Conservative Members have a map showing the future structure of magistrates committees, but that that information has not been made available to members of the Committee or Opposition Members. The House is entitled to see such a map if it exists. If it does not exist, perhaps it was merely in the mind of the hon. Member for Faversham.
In a great piece of theatre, one of the Ministers referred at length to the importance of the word "or". The Government's rejection of that particularly important word in the amendment moved by my hon. Friends gives the game away. It is clear that the Government are determined to centralise powers. They have no intention of allowing people in our communities to have control over the process of summary justice. Nor do they have any intention' of allowing any exercise of control over the management of many of the other services connected with the committees.
In his diatribe, the Home Secretary said that our opposition—

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is flattering the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Miller: That is true.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that our opposition to the Government's reforms was muddled. Had he spent just one minute in Committee, he would know that that is far from true. We attempted to have structured debates about the important issues, but, because of the dogma behind the Bill, the Government simply rejected all our proposals.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by referring to the envisaged changes in police numbers and capital budgets, and it is clear from his comments that the previous Home Secretary, in his new guise, will have his sticky fingers all over those budgets and their implications for police numbers. The Home Secretary said that the Bill is designed to liberate, but it will do no such thing. It gives more centralised powers to a centralising Government, who do not believe in giving people in our communities the freedom to make decisions that affect them. On that basis, the Bill must be rejected.
The Government have a disastrous record on crime prevention, and the Bill is yet another abysmal failure. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Government's short-sighted attempt to centralise and undermine still further services that are so important to our communities.

Mr. John Greenway: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot allow what we have heard from Opposition Members, in particular the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), to go unchallenged.
I appreciate that the hour is late and that the House is weary, but, frankly, the country is weary of the level of crime. Throughout tonight's debate and in Committee, the Opposition complained bitterly that the Government were doing nothing about crime. The Bill contains important reforms to help the police to tackle crime all the better, but all that the Opposition want to do is to deny the Government the opportunity to do something about crime and to strengthen the police service.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield argued that the Bill has no friends. I wish that he had attended the meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs just three weeks ago, when the head of the National Crime Intelligence Service gave evidence to our Committee during its inquiry into international organised crime, which is sweeping not just this country, but Europe and the western world. The hon. Gentleman would have heard that man say that too many forces exist and that we need national strategic objectives to fight crime. That is what the Bill provides.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recognises his responsibility to take the lead in tackling crime. That is why it must be right to set a national objective for policing. Throughout the many months of debate on the Bill, the Opposition have sought to suggest that by setting such an objective the Home Secretary is undermining local policing. That is total rot. Local policing is about creating proper relations between communities and their local police. Police authorities do not achieve that. That is why the policing of a neighbourhood is never an issue at local council elections. The issue is what the Government are doing nationally about crime. That is why the Bill is so right in its provisions. We achieve local objectives and policing not through police authorities, but through the police liaison panels which were set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We need to see more of those.
There is much more that I could say, but I have received a glare from the silent one in the Committee. I refer hon. Members to some of the things that were said in Committee which were recorded in the Hansard report. It is total bunk for the Opposition to suggest that we lost the


argument in the Committee. We certainly did not. We won the votes then, we will win them tonight and we will take the country with us in the fight against crime.
The Home Secretary was extremely modest in what he had to say tonight, because it would appear from what the hon. Member for Sedgefield said that my right hon. and learned Friend had no friends in the police service at all. The truth is that the chairman of the Police Federation has said that the Home Secretary's policies on law and order are more in tune with the Police Federation than those of any Home Secretary for 30 years. That is another good reason why the Bill should be supported.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Home Secretary was modest, he has—in the words of Winston Churchill about Clement Attlee—much to be modest about.
The reality is that the Bill is the misbegotten progeny of the ill-fated report of Sir Patrick Sheehy. The scrapings of that report were mixed up and submitted to another place. They were mangled there, and have been brought to the House in an almost unrecognisable form. The Bill does nothing to tackle the problems of crime which preoccupy and concern so many of our citizens. The Government have failed to tackle crime throughout their 15 years of office, and throughout the tenure of more than five Home Secretaries. They change with such frequency that it is scarcely surprising that there is no consistency of purpose to be found in that Department.
The core reason for the Home Secretary bringing forward the Bill appears to be that he thinks that if he is to convince the public that he is doing something about crime, he must bring a fairly substantial piece of legislation before the House. We are asked to suspend our judgment about its contents and merely to recognise that there are lot of clauses before us, regardless of whether they are apposite to deal with the matter. When their provisions are called into question, it is treated as captious opposition.
The pity is that the Bill did not follow a proper in-depth analysis of the role of the police in society and the needs of modern policing. Such analysis has always preceded the major police Bills which we have had in the past. We did not have a royal commission report to consider. We had a report the evanescent effect of which will go down only as a reminder of how not to tackle the problems of the police.
The philosophy behind the Bill has never been concealed by the Home Secretary—not even tonight. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the reality was that he wants to control the police. He wants to draw into his own hands the authority to tell the police what to do. The most obnoxious aspect of the Bill is the provision that enables him to set national objectives. To defend that, as the right hon. Gentleman did tonight, in terms of its being impossible to judge the effectiveness of the police other than by conformity with those objectives, is to fail to recognise how policy is conducted most effectively on the ground and that the police are an institution admired throughout the world.
The political control that the Home Secretary seeks to exercise is democratically dangerous and ineffective in reducing crime. Local policing means much more than the hon Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested. It means involving the local community with the police in the

fight against crime. It means accepting the local community's targets as those of the local police in brace. It does not mean translating targets set by the Home Secretary into some kind of local priorities—quite the reverse.
There are crime problems common throughout the country, but we live in a highly diverse nation, with different problems in different parts. The problems of inner cities and drugs are not those experienced in constituencies such as mine. My constituency is not a crime-free zone, but to impose on my constituents—and the Bill deals with Scotland—the priorities considered appropriate for Liverpool, Rochdale or the London suburbs is simply nonsense. That is what national objectives are about.
We know that the national objectives trial has not been greeted with great enthusiasm or acclaim by the police. Despite national concern about drug-related crime, there has been issuance of that from the Home Office as a national priority. I suppose that next year we will hear from the Home Secretary that crimes related to drugs must be treated as national priority. That will be hailed as a great new initiative—just as in the past there were new initiatives such as dangerous driving Bills and other ad hockery presented as a fight against crime. The Bill is a cover for the vacuity of the Home Secretary's approach.
My second principal objection to the Bill's contents is the way in which the Home Secretary has tampered with the independence of police authorities. Public confidence in the police rests historically on their understanding that police authorities are local and not the creatures of Whitehall. The Home Secretary has tampered with that in a foolhardy fashion.
It is true that, in another place, some of the Home Secretary's worst excesses were stopped in their tracks by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and a number of former Home Secretaries, who have more sense that the right hon and learned Gentleman. There remains, however, a flawed approach to the construction of police authorities.
The dangerously unhistorical approach to the amalgamation of police authorities demonstrates the Home Secretary's urge to control, politicise and answer demands relating not to the delivery of justice or the criminal justice system but to Treasury requirements. We heard constantly about value for money, but little about the merits of the criminal justice system.
I fear that the amalgamations will be pushed through—not as in the 1960s, when my noble Friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead had responsibility for such matters. Far greater changes in the structure of the police force took place in 1966–67 than have been admitted by the Home Secretary. At that time, those great changes were not unacceptably held up by local public inquiries. Such inquiries took place, but the process of justice was not damaged and confidence in policing was retained. The locality of policing was strengthened and its effectiveness and efficiency were secured.
The Home Secretary is drawing the strings of power further into his hands. As a consequence, he will be held more directly responsible for future policing failures than is desirable for a Home Secretary. It will be said that his objectives have not worked, that they are wrong, and he will bring into contention matters that would be much better left for resolution at local level. He should have underpinned and not undermined the tripartite system, which is our police system's unique safeguard.
The final part of the Bill dealing with magistrates courts is also unloved, but it has been largely gutted by amendments in another place. Here again, there are dangerous centralising tendencies and a dangerous removal of democratic control, but not with an eye to strengthening our criminal justice system. Our magistrates system, which is cheap and efficient compared with the systems in other countries, and which is locally accountable, is being put at risk by Treasury pressure that the Lord Chancellor is quite unable to resist. It is being done in the name of spurious accountability. There has not been public criticism of our magistrates courts system to merit such changes.
People visit this country from all over the world to see how our magistrates courts system works and how local justice is delivered efficiently and effectively and gives value for money. This is a bad Bill and the House should have no hesitation in rejecting it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Perhaps the Secretary of State's reluctance to speak about the Bill stems from the defeat visited upon his previous piece of legislation in the other place only this evening. I found particularly bewildering the reference to the accountability of police authorities to their local communities. That bewilderment stemmed from the fact that as a citizen of this great city and having the privilege to represent a London constituency, I found that in the Bill, as in other legislation, London has been denied an overall police authority.
In my constituency, crime has increased by 8 per cent., and a crime is committed every 20 minutes. We are to lose 22 police officers, there is to be a reorganisation of divisions, but there is nothing in the Bill to reassure me or my constituents that crime and criminal activity will be reduced.
It has been well established, not only in Committee but in the House, in debates on the seemingly unstoppable rise in crime, that the war will not be won if the only weapon that is sent in against the criminal is the police force. We will defeat crime only by the combined efforts of the police, local authorities and citizens. In my local authority area of Camden, there was a particularly successful example of that tripartite approach to defeating crime—Operation Welwyn. That was a perfect example of the way that efforts to defeat crime and criminals should be moving.
There is nothing in the Bill or in any other piece of legislation presented by the Secretary of State that enforces or reinforces the will of every law-abiding citizen—and, despite the crime figures, such people comprise the majority of our citizens—to harness themselves in concert with their local authorities and their police forces to defeat crime and criminals.
One of the main causes of concern in my constituency is fear of crime, particularly among women. The largest single group in my constituency are pensioners, and the majority of them are women. They are caused grave disquiet as much by the fear of crime as by the actual crimes that we know are being committed. They believe—and I believe—in the deterrent power of a uniform, but nothing in the Bill or in the plans that the Home Secretary

has presented to the House leads me to believe that we shall have the deterrent provided by a policeman on the beat, now or in the future.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke of police force numbers. It is possible to visit any part of London now and observe that, although there is indeed more than one police force, there is also an increase in the number of advertising hoardings announcing that estates, individual properties and commercial premises are being guarded by private security firms. If that is the path that the Home Secretary wishes policing to follow, it will be of little comfort to my constituents or the country as a whole.
The people who experience crime should be able to make an important contribution in regard to the way in which criminals are defeated and crime is prevented. Nothing in the Bill deals with crime prevention, although it must surely be an integral part of the defeat of criminals.
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. Let me end by saying that my constituents are only too willing to support the police, greatly admire their local police and are well aware that an essential part of policing is not simply the catching of criminals but—as the police themselves say—the time, care and consideration that they can devote to victims of crime. They realise that the Bill will remove that aspect, and—most important of all—the essential, basic trust that is so vital if crime is to be defeated. That will be lost by the Bill, and I strongly urge all hon. Members to vote against it.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: It was Mogadon man who forced me to my feet. I could not bear to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) say that he resented the fact that a British Home Secretary might have more control over the powers of the police, given that his party wants to give more and more control to an international organisation in Brussels.
The hon. Gentleman also objected to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has refused to accede to a large number of the Sheehy proposals. I remember the hon. Gentleman's saying that he himself was against those proposals. No doubt he supported the slimming away of some of the fat in the middle of the police force: indeed, I think I recall his saying on some other occasion that he did. Yet that is in the Bill, and he is opposed to it.
The hon. Gentleman has not even been anywhere near Scotland in the past two years, although his constituency is there. If he had, he would have seen that in Scotland over the past two years the Government have brought down the rise in crime. It is beginning to fall in Scotland, as it has been falling in England over the past 12 months. There has been a 16 per cent. reduction in the number of burglaries in London; the figures for Manchester, Cambridgeshire and parts of Wales are 17 per cent., 26 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Since when?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the facts of law and order. He has not bothered to find out that for the last 12 months there has been a fall in crime. [Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who is shouting at me from a sedentary position, exactly why that has happened. It has happened because the police forces are


freer now to target particular burglars, and because the courts have been sentencing and removing from circulation for longer periods those who have been targeted for burglary. As a result, burglary has fallen—and it has fallen because of the activities of the Government and the Home Secretary.
As for policing, when one considers what has gone wrong with law and order over the past few years, one sees that we have given more powers to the police and the courts, and more money for law and order. Everything that we have done has been dedicated to reducing the rise in crime, yet still it has not been effective. Until fairly recently, crime has risen and the police have been making fewer and fewer arrests.
What is the answer? Anybody with even the smallest connection with business will know that the problem was lack of organisation and lack of management. The Bill is all about improving the organisation and management of the police force, and freeing the chief constables—the local chiefs of police—so that they can deploy the money as they think fit to target the burglars and support the courts.
There has been a development almost in anticipation of the success that the Bill will have in freeing the police forces and giving more powers to the people who really matter—that is, the local policemen, in response to the local people. Under the provisions of the Bill, the business men whose shops are burgled and ram-raided, and the local householders, will be backed by the local police force. Almost in anticipation of that, in the past 12 months the police force has taken a grip on itself and responded to the promise that there would be legislation to give local police chiefs more power and freedom.
All that nonsense about the Government presiding over rising crime over the past year or so can be brushed to one side, because crime is falling.

Mr. Maclennan: No, it is not.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland goes to his constituency, he will find that crime is falling there, as it is everywhere else. If that is not happening, it may explain why that extraordinary constituency has for so long been represented by such an extraordinary Member of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) disappeared for a week or two to prepare his speech for this debate. He was sighted here, but he has now gone, no doubt to prepare his acceptance speech. But if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ruled earlier, when the Home Secretary was speaking, that I wanted to hear about the Third Reading of the Bill, not about personalities or individuals.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I listened with great care to the Third Reading speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, and if that is the best that he can do, the Conservative party has nothing to worry about.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I venture to suggest that most Conservative Members who vote tonight will be unaware of one of the changes resulting from the Bill that will affect

them in the conduct of their duties as Members of Parliament. I refer to the changes proposed to the revised powers of the Police Complaints Authority.
The authority was set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with investigations against police officers and matters referred by police officers, and to decide on disciplinary matters. I understand that it is now expressing grave concern about the practical effects of the proposal that misconduct procedures can be considered only when an officer might have committed a crime, or breached the codes of practice in such a way as to have a detrimental impact on a member of the public. That could result in behaviour that now breaches the police discipline code being dealt with in future as unsatisfactory performance.
When the allegation resulted from a complaint from a member of the public—many such cases go through our hands—such cases would be dealt with entirely by the police force concerned, with no involvement of the Police Complaints Authority. That has major implications for us as Members of this House because certainly some of us, during our time as hon. Members, have had to advise our constituents on how to seek address for the grievances which they have raised in our surgeries. We are seeing a change. The responsibility to carry out inquiries in many of those areas will move from the independent Police Complaints Authority to an internal police disciplinary procedure.
During 1993, the Police Complaints Authority considered 1,916 complaints alleging incivility by police officers. Since that is neither a criminal offence nor a breach of the codes of practice, such cases will in future be handled entirely by the police with no civilian oversight at all. Taking a more serious example, the authority dealt with 1,830 alleged failures of duty during 1993. Many of those did not constitute breaches of the codes of practice and would not, therefore, be considered as misconduct under the new system. However, they raise concerns about the grey area between clear-cut performance failures and acts of misconduct.
The Police Complaints Authority fully supports the objective of making police managers more clearly responsible for the performance of their officers. However, that aim must be balanced against the need to ensure that the public's complaints against police officers will be thoroughly and objectively investigated. That is why the authority was set up.
The standing of the Police Complaints Authority will be undermined if the public see that a number of their complaints are to be excluded from its considerations. That is why the Police Complaints Authority has consistently argued that there should be a right of review in such cases. Where a divisional commander, possibly after a limited initial inquiry, determines that a complaint from a member of the public is to be considered under the performance procedure, the authority proposes that the commander should write to the complainant, setting out his decision and explaining how the matter will be dealt with. He should also indicate that, if dissatisfied, the complainant would have, say, 21 days in which to exercise his right to have the police decision reviewed by the authority. Failure to respond will be taken as acquiescence in the force's decision. The only decision to be taken by the authority would be whether a complaint would be correctly regarded as one relating to performance or whether it should be dealt with as misconduct.
The authority already hears some criticism that the police power to determine whether to record a complaint undermines the independence of the system from the very outset. I had a complaint in my constituency in the case of a Mrs. Steele in Workington, which I did not believe had been dealt with correctly by the police. It should be the subject of the fullest possible inquiry, yet I cannot get it to be considered in the police complaints procedure. The existence of a review power in performance cases would provide reassurance against similar criticisms that the police could keep potentially serious complaints away from civilian oversight. However, in doing so, it would not interfere with the responsibility of police managers for the performance of their officers.
Confidence in the system of provision of information to the general public by the Police Complaints Authority depends largely on the authority's ability to explain the action that it has taken to ensure that a complaint has been thoroughly and impartially investigated. That ability is severely constrained by the impact of section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose information about a case, except in a summary or other general statement made by the authority, which does not identify the person from whom the information was received or any person to whom it relates. The authority frequently has to tell complainants—our constituents—and their legal advisers, and Members of Parliament, that it cannot meet our reasonable requests for more information because of the requirements of section 98. That leaves the authority looking like a secretive body, unable to explain the strength of a case in public.
I believe that this matter should have been dealt with in the Bill. I understand that the legislation is to go on to the other place for further discussion. If so, I appeal to their Lordships to reconsider the issue, and the revised powers as they relate to the PCA. Unless they do so, I believe that Members of Parliament will find themselves embarrassed in their surgeries in the future.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I had not planned to speak in this debate, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said something that must be answered. I have heard Conservative Members quote the chairman of the Police Federation, Mr. Richard Coyles, before, and the hon. Gentleman only half-quoted him.
Mr. Coyles's comment deserves to be put in context. That context is his strong opposition to this Bill. He would want me to place on record the fact that the Police Federation is not in the pocket of any political party; it is a non-partisan organisation, and it is certainly not in the pocket of the Home Secretary and party who brought us the Sheehy report, this Bill, and the review of police core functions.
In the past decade, crime and the fear of crime have increased right across the country. Burglaries in Warwickshire have trebled and car thefts there have quadrupled since 1979. In the face of all this, have the Government supported the police and enhanced their morale? No, they have not.
In the past two years, the police have faced three challenges from the Government. First, there was the Sheehy report, which sought to destroy the terms and conditions of most police officers. It aroused greater anger

among them than anything this or any other Government have done in more than a century. The Government half backed down on the report, but the fag end of it remains in this Bill.
The second challenge came in the form of this Bill. The concern of the police and of their federation was that the Bill would centralise and politicise the police. The Police Federation and other police organisations conducted a lobbying campaign in another place to challenge the Bill's worst aspects. They feared that the Government's agenda was to implement the fag end of Sheehy, to prepare the ground for the amalgamation of constabularies, and to put Home Office placemen in police authorities—in short, to centralise and politicise the police. Fortunately, their Lordships amended some of the worst aspects of the Bill, but much remains that is dangerous and must be opposed.
The third challenge created for the police by the Government is still in process, for the Bill in some ways prepares the way for it. I refer to the Home Office review of the core functions of the police, scheduled to report by the end of the year. The general secretary of the Police Federation, Lyn Williams, not a man given to exaggeration—besides which his comments have been backed up by academic studies—believes that the review is likely to reduce the number of full-time police officers from the current 126,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade—a drop of 46,000. That is why the Home Secretary will not have the federation or any police officer in his pocket.
The Bill should be rejected because it has more to do with dogma than with fighting crime. It undermines police morale. If the Home Secretary was really concerned to fight crime and boost police morale, why did he not listen to the police? Why did he reject police requests for changes to disciplinary rules? Why did he reject police requests for the regulation of private security organisations and the criminals who, on occasion, are infiltrating them and putting themselves forward to guard people's homes and factories? Why has he sought to undermine the role of the chief constable, about which the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers have expressed concern? If the Home Secretary supports the police, why did not he listen to them and ditch the Bill?

Mr. Tony Worthington: It was with much sadness that I served on the Standing Committee. I do not think that the Government understand what they are doing, or, if they do, what they are doing is completely reprehensible. They do not understand the difference between a public service and a market decision. The Government's response to the problems of the police is to call in a private sector guru, Sir Patrick Sheehy, to analyse what is wrong, if there is anything wrong, and then to apply private sector nostrums.
I wonder how many visits Sir Patrick Sheehy has from people abroad wishing to listen to him. I doubt whether he has many. Yet the British police are visited by people from all over the world, seeking to understand what is so special about the British police system. It does not matter which part of the world one is talking about; there is a realisation that there is something worth learning from the public service element and the sense of community to be found in the British police. Sir Patrick Sheehy does not have visitors


from all over the world because British private industry is not admired in the way the the British police service is admired. That is true.
The total anti-local authority perspective of the Bill is also sad. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be disappointed by the performance of certain local authorities. Some local authorities will not be so good as they could be. But when one talks of community, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have done during the Bill's passage, it is impossible to see any way in which the fulness, the richness and the overall quality of community can be fulfilled without local authorities being at the centre of it. The introduction of the private sector is about atomisation, individualisation and marketisation.
One needs to see the potential for developing community in a much fuller way. There is no doubt that such community development can come only with an improved local authority at its heart. If we and the the Home Office have learnt anything during the past few years it is that crime is too big and important for the police alone to cope with. It is the local community and the departments of the local authority that can tackle crime by preventing it.
The Government have not fully understood the sensitivity of what they are dealing with—the tripartite relationship between the chief constable, the local authority and the Government. For instance, the background literature from the Home Office said that the primary object of a police force is the prevention of crime. I doubt whether any hon. Member would quarrel with that. If crime does not occur, that is a total achievement. But when one sets national objectives, the primary objective of a police force is not the prevention of crime. The prevention of crime is the one thing that cannot be included in a performance target. One simply cannot measure the prevention of crime. It is impossible to measure whether it has occurred. Yet we are to have performance indicators.
Let us consider one of those performance indicators—the number of violent crimes detected per 100 officers. There is not a chief constable in the country who could not achieve a high rate of success against that measurement. It would be easy for a chief constable to find enough violent criminals to increase his figures. He would act like a world cup referee who has to give out yellow or red cards. Crimes figures are among the most creative and least natural statistics in the world. They are compiled each year using a complicated social process. Any chief constable who knows that he is being measured against the number of violent crimes detected in a year will achieve that target.
Finally, I wish to deal with how the Bill has been dealt with from a Scottish viewpoint. The Conservative party in Scotland is in dire straits and is now supported by 10 per cent. of the electorate. If the Government want to know why they are doing so badly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The situation facing the Conservative party in Scotland has nothing to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Worthington: Part II of the Bill applies to Scotland, yet it has not been discussed and no policy documents have been issued. The Minister with

responsibility for policing in Scotland has not made a public statement on why the changes are necessary. That is contemptuous.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) spoke of the fall in crime in Scotland. That cannot have been achieved as a result of the Government's policies in Scotland, because no one knows what their policies are. The Minister responsible has not spoken for the past two years on crime in Scotland. I doubt whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton can even tell me who the Minister is. There is a vacuum here.
The partnership in Scotland between local authoritie—the Scottish police Minister has now emerged—and the police force, which was called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) but which this Bill will seek to break up, has begun to succeed. That is one of the reasons why I feel so sad about the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: This is a hapless and friendless Bill, which may explain why the Home Secretary has such a close affinity with it. He sees in it a kindred spirit. The danger is that the Bill is likely to be around considerably longer than he is.
That is why we heard from him what passed as a plea in mitigation—it could not be described as anything else. I know his past, and the criminal law was never one of his strong suits: planning, yes—crime, no. He would have done well to leave the plea in mitigation to someone else, not least because a lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client, and that was never truer than in relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is clear—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary misdirects himself as I have nothing to defend. It is he and the Government who have brought forward this monstrous Bill and he should be under no illusions. We are fighting it because it is a creature of dogma and a centralising measure, whether in relation to the Home Office or to the Lord Chancellor's Department. We are fighting the Bill because it is ineffective and will not aid the cause of crime prevention. It will not lead to one fewer crime being committed. It will not further the interests of justice, whether of the civil or criminal law. It will do nothing for the consumer of legal services. For these reasons, we are fighting the Bill.
The true nature of the Government's purpose in bringing forward the Bill was revealed by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). In a characteristically trenchant way—bullish he was in every respect—he gave the game away. The purpose is to impose business on the police and the magistracy. The so-called disciplines of the market are to be imposed on the administration of justice and on those who seek to ensure that crime is defeated and law and order upheld.
We say that the market has no place in that area, because the police are and should be a public service and because the magistracy seeks to serve the public. The Bill is hapless and friendless because they believe that it will do nothing to further the cause of justice. It will do nothing to further the cause of crime prevention. That is why we oppose it.
In Committee, the Government were prepared to make only one concession in respect of the magistracy. Only one amendment were they prepared to accept in that area. Interestingly enough, it was an amendment which sought to remove from the Bill the only reference to the Treasury.


That amendment they were prepared to accept. I can well understand why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was prepared to take that course. He must feel, as surely as the magistrates and the justices' clerks do, the Treasury incubus on his back. The magistrates and the justices' clerks know, just as Lord Justice Purchase knows, along with those in another place who rightly criticise the Bill, that it is the Treasury and not the interests of justice that predominates in the considerations that lie behind the measure.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has failed in its duty to uphold the interests of the citizen. The Home Office has failed in its duty to uphold the interests of the police and the citizen. That is why we shall oppose this measure root and branch, now and in the future.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the determination with which he and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for , the Home Department have sustained the momentum of the vital police measures set out in the Bill. They are not least about priorities, performance, objectives, targets and achievements.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in the context of the magistracy, talked about the indicative map as though it were secret. It was not secret—3,500 copies were printed and sent to the magistrates service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was robust, vivid and forceful, but I would not accuse the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) of any of those things. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who often produces more heat than light, tonight was incandescently obscure.
For my part of the Bill, I yield to no one in my admiration for the magistrates and their justice. For my part of the Bill, I seek only to improve the administration that supports them. I wish the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 253.

Division No. 286]
[11.34 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Booth, Hartley


Ancram, Michael
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Beggs, Roy
Butler, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)





Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hendry, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Fry, Sir Peter
Marlow, Tony


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sweeney, Walter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Sykes, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Streeter, Gary



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Allen, Graham
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Hilary
Church, Judith


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Austin-Walker, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Corston, Ms Jean


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blair, Tony
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blunkett, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Dafis, Cynog


Boyes, Roland
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith
Darling, Alistair


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Byers, Stephen
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Callaghan, Jim
Denham, John





Dewar, Donald
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dixon, Don
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McMaster, Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
MacShane, Denis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fraser, John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fyfe, Maria
Martlew, Eric


Galbraith, Sam
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Graham, Thomas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pike, Peter L.


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spellar, John


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)






Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Wigley, Dafydd


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Straw, Jack
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, Jimmy


Turner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Tyler, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Vaz, Keith



Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Eric Illsey and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. John Cummings.


Watson, Mike

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Section 11 Funding (Bradford)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Max Madden: I am extremely pleased to introduce this short debate on section 11 funding in Bradford, which is of considerable concern not only to all Bradford Members but to hon. Members representing many parts of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) are both in their places.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who is ill, is unable to be here tonight. He asked me to read the following statement from him:
Having visited schools in my constituency where up to 95 per cent. of the roll are of ethnic minority origin, I know how important this issue is, and that is why I was glad to have an opportunity of discussing it with the Minister for Inner Cities just a few weeks ago.
An understanding of English and an ability to use the language are vital prerequisites to the learning process. Any child who lacks those basic skills is bound to be at a serious disadvantage and to start losing time which can never be made up.
Our objective must be to ensure that every child starts his or her schooling with an ability to make the most of what it can offer. To that end more Section 11 money should perhaps be devoted to the pre-school sector and to working with parents who, in most cases, are very anxious to give their children a good start in life but who may be poorly equipped to do so.
All too evidently, the problems are here and now. Money spent today, if wisely used, will certainly be repaid in the future by cutting the cost of tomorrow's unemployment and tomorrow's social disadvantage.
I hope that Bradford will combine with Government to put together a bid within the context of the Single Regeneration Budget which, among other things, clearly addresses the problems which section 11 was intended to resolve, and which also provides good value for taxpayers' and Council Tax payers' money.
'Few challenges are of greater significance in terms of individual development and the future of our communities generally.
The fact that it is a matter of general concern is demonstrated by an early-day motion, which has been signed by more than 70 Members. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, the problem is here and now in Bradford. By the year 2000, one in every two pupils in schools in Bradford will be of ethnic minority origin. At present, nearly 82,000 pupils are on roll, 27 per cent. of ethnic minority origin.
The parents charter from the Secretary of State for Education recently flopped through all our letter boxes. It states:
You have a right to a good education for your child. This means that you have a right to expect the school to do its best to make sure every child does as well as he or she possibly can.
The Government's education reforms are designed to support schools' and teachers' efforts to achieve that.
In Bradford, that means that some children need help to speak, write and understand English. That is essential if they are to meet the requirements and demands of the national curriculum. That, sadly, is not the case today.
Continuous monitoring of 20,000 ethnic minority pupils in Bradford suggests that, on leaving first schools aged nine, 27 per cent. of those pupils have still not achieved national curriculum level 2. That has an impact on subsequent achievement, because assessment records show that 59 per cent. of ethnic minority pupils entering upper schools, aged 13, have not yet achieved national


curriculum level 4. The proportion of Bradford students who do not achieve GCSE grade C or above is the highest in the country.
Bradford still has a number of pupils and students who arrive at school with no English. Of the September 1993 intake, there were 177 such children in first schools, 114 in our middle schools and 48 in our upper schools. Although most of our children are second generation, few have parents who were educated in Britain. There is a still a propensity for a spouse in an arranged marriage to come from overseas, often speaking little or no English. It is not surprising that those parents cannot teach their children English at home. Because of the number of parents who cannot speak English, there is a significant need for more adult literacy provision. I know that the Minister is concerned about that, and I hope that he will say something about it.
Nearly all our children in Bradford live in areas of high stress and social and economic deprivation. The need for literacy development to meet national averages is high. Many Asian children are bilingual and some as young as six, seven or eight are multilingual. Although they achieve such proficiency in languages, they are given little or no credit. If those same children spoke English, German, Italian or French, we would all say, "What clever children." They would win enormous recognition and credit. Because they speak Urdu, Punjabi or Pushto, little or no credit is given to them.
Given support, tuition and the support that section 11 offers to many schools in Bradford and in other parts of the United Kingdom, those children can be given the support and education that they not only deserve but to which their parents are entitled—not just through the parents charter but as taxpayers and council tax payers. That is, sadly, not the case today.
In November last year, the Home Office announced that section 11 funding would be transferred to the Department of the Environment and administered regionally through the single regeneration budget; popularly known as the SRB. Initial guidance indicated that section 11, a revenue-based grant, would not sit easily in the SRB which is largely a capital-based programme.
From April 1995, Bradford city council will no longer receive section 11 funding. To sustain its current level of service commitment, it will be required to identify more than £4 million against the context of further budget reductions. Bradford city council now employs 587 section 11 staff in 19 projects. The full effect of the £4.2 million budget reduction will be the loss of nearly 300 staff.
Every project faces serious staff reductions, and community-based projects will be devastated. Those projects currently employ 121 staff, of whom 82 are on fixed-term and sessional contracts. In school-based projects, 320 teachers and other staff are employed, of whom 142 are on fixed-term contracts. Of all the projects, the most dramatic impact will be felt in nursery and first schools where 47 per cent., or 91 staff, are on fixed-term contracts.
I wish to end—my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North and for Bradford, South wish to intervene briefly—by asking the Minister a number of questions. First, I should be grateful to know whether he is in

principle prepared to meet with an all-party delegation to discuss the problems which I have been outlining this evening. I requested such a meeting some time ago.
Secondly, will the Government consider extending section 11 for another two years, administered by the Home Office, to assist places such as Bradford which were advised by the Home Office to submit three-year section 11 bids which end next April? A number of metropolitan districts which submitted five-year bids will be able to bid for SRB allocations, and that strikes many of us as extremely unfair and anomalous.
Alternatively, if my suggestion to the Minister is unacceptable, will the Government consider grants for education purposes available through the SRB being administered by the Home Office and the Department for Education? If the Government decide that section 11-type initiatives are to remain within the SRB, that would need to be earmarked within the budget so that there are clear criteria distinguishing capital and revenue grants.
Finally, recognising the importance of section 11 funding in places such as Bradford, will the Government provide additional resources to support section 11 work in schools, either through the SRB or in some other way? The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned in his statement that he recently met the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction. It is interesting to note that the Minister, when replying to a debate on housing and urban regeneration and referring to section 11 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South whom he had met recently, said:
We do understand the issue and we will do what we can to find a way through."—[Official Report, 29 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 909.]
That admission is interesting, and I hope very much that, when the Minister of State replies, he will be able to give some indication of what thinking is going on in Whitehall. The matter is presided over by three Departments, and there seem to be major internal contradictions in the policy that is emerging. I hope that those contradictions can be resolved, because the victims of them are many thousands of children throughout the country who deserve the best education that we can provide. I hope that ways will quickly be found of ensuring that those resources find their way to the children of this country.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: There is cross-party recognition that the loss of section 11 funding is turning the Government's policies on their head. Section 11 funding has been successful in respect of nursery education. This evening, we are concentrating on Bradford because it suffered the double blow of losing SSA support for ethnicity. Funding must be continued. Bradford's bid was reduced from five years to three, and the loss of SSA meant a cut of £18.3 million.
Initiatives such as city challenge and the urban programme were the result of problems in inner-city areas. We do not want to return to the days of a lack of funding to provide equality of opportunity.
Over the past three years, Bradford has provided £4.2 million from mainline funding to support section 11 programmes, but it cannot continue to do so after an SSA cut of £18.3 million. The Government must concentrate on what they are trying to achieve. If that is not done, they will create problems and defeat their own projects.
As a minimum, section 11 funding of earmarked schemes must be protected for at least a further two years, making five years. If that cannot be done, the Government must acknowledge the need to do something. In areas such as Bradford and most other metropolitan authorities, there must be greater concentration on section 11-type schemes to support people in dramatic need.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Two years ago, together with my hon Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and our late hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, I had a meeting with Home Office and Education Ministers about the future of section 11. Strong advice from the Home Office meant that bids were for only three years—with the promise of close co-operation and advice, to assist the authority when projects came up for renewal. The single regeneration budget came as a bombshell after all the promises that we were given.
One problem is that Bradford has never had a race riot. If it had been otherwise, large sums of money might have followed, as happened with Bristol, Toxteth and Brixton. Fortunately, we have never had such happenings, and part of the reason for that is the extensive and profitable use of section 11 funds in the youth service and in further education. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to our case, and I hope that we shall hear some good news.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for raising the subject and for speaking so knowledgeably about the good work that is carried out under section 11, especially in Bradford, and about the continuing need there for instruction and practice in English for those members of the community, especially the younger members, for whom English is not the first language.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, West for bringing the message from my hon Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I am glad that the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) stayed to add their voices to the debate.
I regret that this year's reduction in section 11 funding was necessary in the overall Exchequer retrenchment, but we should acknowledge that, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the grant was rapidly increased and reached high levels in recent years. Even at the reduced level of £110 million, the amount provided under section 11 compares favourably with the £33 million that was made available in 1979 –80, and the £88 million paid out in 1988–89.
As soon as I was aware that it would not be possible to sustain the grant at the level to which it had risen, I got my Department to write to local education authorities to give them some 16 months' notice, so that they could have the maximum time for the difficult task of planning how best to manage the reduction. Following that and the result of extensive consultation with local authorities and their associations, we also changed the basis on which the grant was distributed, using a straight cash grant allocation to each local authority rather than distributing funding as a percentage of the cost of each approved project. That was

because that method meant that funding would be lost if local authorities were unable to increase their contribution to each project.
I am glad to say that more than 60 per cent. of LEAs that have reported their decisions to us plan to make up the shortfall and keep all existing projects going. We have yet to hear from 23 per cent. of LEAs, but I am glad that Bradford is among those that have been able to maintain section 11 spending this year. At £4.2 million, Bradford still has the third largest section 11 grant in the country.
The hon. Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, South and for Bradford, North also expressed particular concern about the absorption of Bradford's section 11 money into the single regeneration budget. I can understand that that worry is heightened by their knowledge that Bradford's projects are all three-year ones and are due to end this year. Responsibility for the SRB to which section 11 is being transferred lies not with the Home Office but with the Department of the Environment.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction met the hon. Member for Bradford, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, together with representatives of ethnic groups in Bradford, to discuss these issues last month. My right hon. Friend tells me that he found the meeting useful. The hon. Member for Bradford, West has asked to see me and a ministerial colleague from the Department for Education with other hon. Members to discuss these issues. I shall endeavour to arrange such a meeting before the recess, so that we can look more broadly at the issues.
Although responsibility for the SRB does not lie with the Home Office, I should like to make some observations. The SRB conforms to the kind of integrated model recommended by a large number of independent organisations—the local authority associations and many voluntary organisations as well as the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office. This new arrangement marks the end of what the Audit Commission has referred to as
a patchwork quilt of complexity and idiosyncrasies".
It is surely sensible to have regeneration programmes put together as near as possible to the areas benefiting and at a point where local organisations can most effectively bring their own ideas and priorities to bear.
The management of the budget through the 10 Government offices for the regions will ensure the involvement of people who are much closer to the concerns of local communities and better equipped to form judgments on local needs than are Whitehall Departments. It is an essential ingredient of the whole initiative that resources should be allocated on the basis of local perceptions of need and not just according to the priorities that are set nationally.
The hon. Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, North and for Bradford, South painted a clear picture of the position in Bradford. From my knowledge, it is similar in many respects to the situation in many other parts of the country with substantial ethnic minority populations. But Bradford also has its own heritage, characteristics, circumstances and needs which deserve, and have, to be identified and addressed in their own individual fashion. Decisions about Bradford should be reached on the basis of those, not some general blueprint.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked for section 11-type projects to be ring-fenced or "earmarked" to ensure their protection. I am afraid that ring fencing would


undermine the very purpose of the SRB, which allows local organisations the greatest flexibility in how they bid for and spend money from central Government.
The opportunity is there for local authorities, training and enterprise councils and others—in Bradford and elsewhere—to submit applications under the SRB for funds to meet the particular needs of their areas. Most promisingly, in view of the hon. Gentlemen's concerns, the SRB means that initiatives aimed at ethnic minorities can be considered in the context of wider regeneration programmes. Members of ethnic minorities should no longer feel that they are being treated differently, or being marginalised, as some have certainly felt they were in relation to existing programmes.
As sponsor Minister for three city challenge programmes in the west midlands, I have seen the achievements that are possible through local authorities, TECs, the private sector and voluntary organisations working closely in partnership—achievements which I suspect would not have been possible otherwise. Something else that I have learnt from my experience as a sponsor Minister is that education, and training in English for those who do not speak it—especially those just entering education—is soon identified as a key priority for those who wish to regenerate parts of our urban areas containing minority communities who do not speak English as a first language.
Nevertheless, I have heard anxieties voiced by some groups—which lay behind all that the hon. Gentlemen said—that large regeneration programmes such as the SRB, or to a lesser extent city challenge, tend to target economic revival and regeneration over and above all other aspects. However, if economic regeneration is to be possible and local people are to be adequately trained for the employment opportunities that regeneration will create, it is vital for them to be able to speak English and have sufficient command of it to take up those opportunities in training and in work.
In that way, many city challenge projects have realised the importance of investing in education as a vital part of their overall programme. If they think through their priorities sensibly, the regional offices and those bidding for funds will realise the key role that education plays in urban regeneration, and will see the need to target their bids accordingly.
The Home Office is emphatically not bowing out of the process, although we do not have departmental responsibility for it. We remain the Department responsible for promoting the interests of the ethnic minority communities. For the first time, senior Home

Office officials will be based in each of the Government regional offices; they will pay particularly close attention to the way in which bids and programmes are being designed, and the impact that they will have on the communities concerned.
Most important, all projects will be monitored after implementation to ensure that the benefits that this expenditure brings have reached the ethnic minorities, and the other communities and groups that are most in need. Such monitoring is vital. It will apply to all SRB initiatives, not just to those that are recognisable as the kind hitherto funded under programmes such as section 11. That will create a substantial opportunity to ensure that, in future, the ethnic minorities benefit more fully from a wider range of Government spending than they have in the past.
We are certainly aware in the Home Office—and, I believe, in the regional offices—of the particular issue relating to section 11 funding in Bradford to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West and his hon. Friends have referred. The SRB is intended to support a wide range of local regeneration activity, and to encourage locally devised and implemented initiatives. It would be wrong for the Government to predetermine the outcome of any of the bids, but I believe that the outcome of the bids can be more effectively targeted than Opposition Members may think, on the areas on which they would like them to focus
Matters are still at an early stage. Potential applicants have been invited to let the regional government office have an outline of their proposals as a basis for dialogue and negotiation; I understand that Bradford has sent its outline proposals to the Yorkshire and Humberside office. The regional offices are currently considering the draft bids that they have received, and have been getting in touch with potential applicants to discuss them—although I understand that the Yorkshire and Humberside office has not yet had such a feedback meeting with Bradford.
Much further work will then need to be done before 7 September, the closing date for applications. At that stage, when it has been possible to consider proposed initiatives in greater detail, and with the necessary flesh on the skeleton outline, it will be for the Government offices to make properly informed recommendations to Ministers about the bids on the table.
I am glad to have had the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Bradford, West to develop some thoughts on that crucial subject, and I look forward to meeting him and other colleagues in the near future to consider the matter a little more fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.